Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

Check Trading.

Sir Robert Bird: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the proposed prohibition of the payment of a poundage by purchasers of utility clothing in respect of the credit facilities afforded to them by the credit trading firms will have for effect the bringing to an end a system which has been operating for 60 years and will involve the credit trading firms in immediate heavy losses, arising out of the credits outstanding; and will he therefore suspend the Order until the matter has been further examined?

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to lay before Parliament a regulation to deal with check trading?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I presume that both Questions refer to the form of credit trading known as check trading. I have made an Order under the Defence Regulations controlling check trading, and issued a Direction under it which prohibits the charging of poundage on checks supplied by check trading companies and similar businesses. After discussion with representatives of the interests concerned, I have decided that this prohibition will not come into force until 1st October. This will give the companies time to collect their outstanding debts and to make the necessary adjustments in their businesses.

The purpose of the Order is to protect the buyer of clothing and other necessities against excessive charges.

Sir R. Bird: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware that the personnel engaged in this organisation exceeds 12,000 and that they contend that the Order will put them out of business and employment? Further, will he consider some scheme whereby an appropriate quota from this organisation can be released for the national effort while permitting the structure of check trading to continue to give service to the masses, as it has done for many years past?

Mr. Dalton: I would not, without notice, like to accept the hon. Gentleman's figure of 12,000. I think it may be an understatement, and, if so, that only indicates that it would be in the national interest to reduce the scale of these operations. I cannot believe that this large number of itinerant travellers is really necessary in order that people shall be able to get their necessary supplies. I would point out that postponement of the Order until 1st October should assist the transition which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am also advised that these check-trading companies get a large part of their revenue through the discount they get from retailers.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these people will be forced out of business? How can he reconcile that with his statements in the past that it is not the policy of the Government to put anybody out of business?

Mr. Dalton: I have never said that it is not the policy of the Government to put anybody out of business. It is our policy to see that our labour forces are most effectively employed in the winning of the war, and I cannot believe that the vast army of people engaged in this business is really contributing to the winning of the war.

Retail Trade.

Mr. Summers: asked the President of the Board of Trade what method he will adopt for applying the policy of the Government in connection with the retail trade, in the light of the recommendations made by the Non-food Retail Trade Committee, namely, by Order in Council or by legislation?

Major Procter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any further statement as to his proposals for dealing with retail traders?

Mr. Dalton: I am advised that legislation would be necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the Retail Trade Committee, but I am also aware that there is formidable opposition to these recommendations among the interests affected. As regards future policy, I am not at present able to add anything to the full statement which I made in the House on 23rd July.

Mr. Summers: May we take it that the Minister will not implement the Government's policy on this matter by Order in Council?

Mr. Dalton: I am advised that in particular the imposition of the compulsory levy would require legislation.

Mr. De la Bère: What is the Government's policy? No one knows. Have they got one?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would give facilities for the convening of a meeting, embracing all sectional associations of the retail trade and to preside at that meeting, with a view to securing unanimity so as to enable the Government to prepare the necessary protective legislation for the small trader?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I have recently seen the principal retail trade organisations separately, and am acquainted with their views. I see no prospect of securing unanimity, even if I were to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that something must be done to meet the present situation? Further is he aware that someone must initiate the beginning? The matter cannot be allowed to drift on and leave people to be completely wiped out. In view of the admission the right hon. Gentleman made on 12th May about small traders being the backbone of the country, it is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will re-read the speech I made on 23rd July, in which he will find indications of what is to be done.

Mr. De la Bère: I am referring to 12th May.

Mr. Dalton: The other is more recent.

Pocket Lighters (Petrol Price).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the Government's intention to impose a price regulation on the sale of petrol for pocket lighters, in view of the many instances where the public have been called on to pay for this petrol in small bottles at a rate that works out at over £2 per gallon?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I expect to receive recommendations for the making of a Maximum Prices Order from the Central Price Regulation Committee this week.

Closed Businesses.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade what guarantee is given to a person whose business is compulsorily closed down for the duration that he will be enabled to resume his trade when the war is over?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that no absolute guarantee can be given. But as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum on Concentration of Production, the Departments concerned will-take all measures open to them to assist the re-opening of closed factories. The Board of Trade keep a register of factories closed down under concentration arrangements and the Ministry of Labour a record of transferred workers so that their return to their old employment after the war may be facilitated.

Mr. Hannah: Will there by any compensation for those who are unable to get back to their old work?

Mr. Dalton: That is a question for the future; I do not think I can answer it now.

Mr. Rhys Davies: It may be true that a register is kept of factories that are closed, but is a similar record kept of retail businesses that are closed?

Mr. Dalton: This Question does not ask that, but I will look it up. I think a record is kept, but I should like to have notice of the Question.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not very important that such a record should be kept?

Mr. De la Bère: It is vitally necessary.

Clothes Rationing.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now reached a decision upon the issue to farm workers of boots and dungarees without coupons?

Mr. Dalton: I regret that it is not possible, in view of the serious supply situation, to allow the supply of boots and dungarees to farm workers coupon free.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make as to the granting of supplementary clothing coupons for workers engaged in the retail business of preparing and selling groceries, fish, meat and other similar commodities?

Mr. Dalton: Supplementary clothing coupons will be granted to many workers in the food distributive trades. For the precise arrangements, I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await a comprehensive announcement about the issue of supplementary coupons which I hope to make before the end of this month.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before Parliament adjourns?

Mr. Dalton: Parliament is due to adjourn shortly. I would like to make it before the end of the month, but I cannot promise it in a day or two.

Mr. Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in a number of cases staffs of managements are equally deserving of supplementary coupons as workpeople?

Furniture (Price Control Order).

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about the control of furniture prices?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I signed an Order yesterday fixing furniture manufacturers' maximum net profits and distributors' margins for new and secondhand furniture. The Order also imposes a strict control on hire purchase transactions in furniture. I am advised that the

effect of the Order will be to reduce substantially the present high level of furniture prices. I hope before long to follow up this Order by further Orders fixing the prices of utility furniture as this comes into production.

Mr. Ridley: Would my right hon. Friend be willing, after the Adjournment, to answer a Question stating the effect of the Order to which he has just referred?

Mr. Dalton: I shall be very glad to do so. By that time I shall be able to assess the effect on prices.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is no use merely controlling prices unless he inspects the quality of the stuff used for making furniture?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not read in the Press that I have appointed a committee to go into that subject and advise me with regard to it.

Carpet Factories, Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain carpet-weaving factories in Scotland have been employed on making blankets; that at present these factories are working part time and that some of their skilled female labour is being sent to England; and what steps he is taking to ensure that, when these factories are again called upon to work full time, they will be in a position to fulfil his orders?

Mr. Dalton: I am aware that certain carpet factories have been producing blankets. These factories are discontinuing production on carpets for which no materials have been released for some months. In the distribution of further orders for blankets these factories will receive consideration, so that some part of their immobile labour may continue to be employed. I am glad to say, how-ever, that a number of these factories have already turned over to direct munitions work. The question of the transfer of the skilled labour is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. As in other industries, to which concentration has been applied, the Ministry of Labour will facilitate the return of the transferred workers to their former employment after the war.

Mr. Kirkwood: In view of the answer to a Question which I obtained from the Minister of Labour last Thursday, shall I have the support of my right hon. Friend in seeing that Scottish girls are not taken away to England?

Mr. Dalton: The Minister of Labour and I are often in contact on these matters.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there is a very great surplus of blankets and that during the winter many men will be without sufficient blankets?

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. Gentleman will tell me where the surplus blankets are, I will take steps to get hold of them. I want to know.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that this factory has been put on short time because of the surplus of blankets?

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. Gentleman will indicate to me where these surplus blankets are to be found, I will requisition them, if necessary.

Concentration of Industry (Trade Marks).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under concentration of industry, he- will state the number and names of trades whose products are to be pooled under the condition on sale to the public that no reference is made to trade marks; is he aware that this arrangement lowers the all-round standard of production instead of at least maintaining it; and whether he has taken into consideration the view of traders thus affected that the object of the new regulation could be equally achieved were the use of trade marks permitted?

Mr. Dalton: No such condition as that referred to in the first part of the Question has been imposed by the Board of Trade under any concentration scheme. Normally, the goods produced by the nucleus firm on behalf of the closed firm are sold under the latter's trade mark, but whether this is so or not is left to private agreement between the parties to the concentration arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any, and what,

investigation is being made on the question of soldiers' pay and/or allowances?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): As this question concerns all three Services, and not the Army only, I have been asked to reply.
The Lord Privy Seal has already indicated that the House will be given an opportunity to debate the question of Service pay and allowances after the Recess. In preparation for this Debate, and with a view to removing certain misapprehensions, the Government propose to lay a White Paper containing material relevant thereto.

Major Lyons: Will that White Paper be laid before the House before the coming Recess, and does my right hon. Friend realise the great public feeling which exists now about the insufficiency of pay in the lower ranks of the Army?

Sir K. Wood: In regard to the first part of the question, the White Paper will be laid in good time before the Debate.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will it be laid before the House adjourns?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, not before the House adjourns.

Mr. Thorne: Will it be sent through the post?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

Mountain-Stream Fish (Killing).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that troops are in the habit of killing fish in mountain streams by means of hand grenades; and whether he will put an end to this practice?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): No, Sir. I am unaware of any such habit.

Mr. White: Can my right hon. Friend say how the ammunition is issued for this type of operation, and will he look into any cases which I may send to him?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly look into any case; I said that there is no such general habit, although I can quite conceive of circumstances in which


individual cases may have happened; but I am sure they are individual.

Sir Percy Harris: Are we to understand that it is against the rules of the War Office to use ammunition in this way?

Death on Active Service (Notice to Next-of-Kin).

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for War why the announcement of a soldier's death on active service overseas is made to the next-of-kin of officers by telegram and of men by a form B 104 82B; and, if so, will he see that in future it is communicated by telegram or suitably worded letter?

Sir J. Grigg: At times when casualties are heavy the numbers would make it impossible to notify the deaths of soldiers either by specially typed letter or telegram, without considerable delay or overloading of the telegraph service, and it is desirable that the same procedure should be followed whether casualties are few or many. The number of officers' deaths, however, is at Ho one time so great as to make use of the telegraph impracticable.

Mr. Spearman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present arrangements very often cause unnecessary distress; has he not heard of instances where next-of-kin receive a printed form which they think is of no importance and only later in the day find out that it is a notification of death, and would not some other arrangement, if not by telegram by some special, distinguishable letter, be better so that it would be possible for near relatives to have the news broken more gently?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider whether it is possible to mark the communication in some way so as to signify its importance, but if I were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member either to telegraph or to send a typed letter, there would at times of heavy casualties be very great delays in the notification of casualties to relatives, and I think that a delay in the notification would be a -worse evil than the other.

Soldier's Discharge.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War the reasons for the discharge from the Army of 11411528 Lance-Bombardier W. Cunningham, Royal Artillery, under paragraph 390 (XVIII) (a). King's Regulations, 1940?

Sir J. Grigg: King's Regulations provide that a soldier may, at the discretion of the competent military authority, be discharged on the grounds that his services are no longer required. In view of the hon. Member's Question, I have looked into this particular case and am satisfied from the confidential information available that the military authorities concerned were justified in their action.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was an outstanding fighter for democracy in the Spanish war and that his character and ability have recently earned him promotion in the British Army, and is this not a clear case of political victimisation?

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the first part of the question is that I am aware of all the facts, and the answer to the second part is, "No, Sir."

Miss Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is only one of something like a dozen cases where there are strong reasons for suspecting political prejudice to the disadvantage of men who served in the Spanish Civil War?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Canteens (Women's Land Army).

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BARTLETT:

21. To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has now decided to open the canteens of the Young Women's Christian Association, and similar organisations, to members of the Women's Land Army?

Mr. Bartlett: May I have an answer to Question No. 21?

Sir J. Grigg: Question No. 21 has been transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Bartlett: On a point of Order. I put a Question the other day to the Minister of Agriculture, and it became apparent from his reply that it was the Secretary of State for War to whom the Question should have been put. I now put it down to the Secretary of State for War, and I am told that it has been transferred to the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the Question was postponed.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman is able to answer the Question now, may he not answer it?

Sir J. Grigg: I have not looked into the Question, as I understood that it was transferred to another Department.

Sir P. Harris: Was it transferred by the Clerks at the Table or by the War Office? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know anything about it?

Equipment (Cleaning).

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the amount of time spent by soldiers in blancoing their equipment; and whether, in view of the importance of using all available time for training, he will give instructions for this practice to be drastically reduced?

Sir J. Grigg: Web equipment has to be blancoed to preserve it and keep it waterproof. The frequency with which this needs doing therefore depends largely on the weather and the kind of training carried out.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is necessary to spend at least two or three hours a week in this operation, in view of the fact that he has stated that such time is not available for educational instruction?

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the second part of the question, I have not stated anything of the sort. As regards the first part, if soldiers are out on practices and get their equipment wet, it is conceivable that more than the usual time has to be spent on blancoing.

Sir P. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider suspending the use of blanco, both to save materials and to save the time spent on using it?

Sir J. Grigg: I have just explained that equipment has to be blancoed in order to preserve it.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that blancoing is treated as a formality which has to be undergone by people going on guard, rather than as a question of preserving equipment?

Mr. Montague: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the waste of soldiers' time in cleaning their teeth?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, I will, certainly.

Officers (Financial Difficulties).

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War how many cases have been brought to the notice of his Department in the last six months of serving officers of the rank of captain or below who are suffering serious financial difficulties?

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that no statistics of this nature are available.

Saluting.

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War what the regulations are with regard to saluting in London?

Sir J. Grigg: Saluting in London is governed by the same regulations as saluting elsewhere. These are contained in King's Regulations, 1940, paragraphs 954 and 955.

Major Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider those regulations, to see whether it would not be desirable to dispense with off-duty saluting in London, Aldershot, and other places in which large numbers of troops are stationed, and, if not, will be see that the regulations are obeyed?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider that question, but I would remind the House that this question solved itself in a commonsense manner in the last war, and I see no reason why it should not this time.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of this is that many, soldiers and officers on leave immediately change into civilian clothes in order that they may walk about without the necessity of saluting?

Cadet Force.

Mr. Donald Scott: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the decision to suspend enlistment in the Army Cadets is causing great disappointment to many willing youths; and whether he will allow the formation of new units where officers and instructors are available and authorise the issue of forage caps and arm-hands until further equipment can be provided?

Sir J. Grigg: The establishments already allotted to units of the Army Cadet Force will absorb all the uniform available. In view of the undertaking given in this


House that uniforms will be issued to boys who join the Army Cadet Force, I do not think it advisable, apart from other difficulties, to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction and disappointment in" rural areas, where in some cases as many as 60 or 70 boys desire to enlist but are unable to do so?

Sir J. Grigg: I am very much aware of the disappointment which would be caused if they were enlisted and not given uniforms.

Sir J. Lamb: Is the Minister aware that they are not asking to wear uniforms but that they desire to serve?

Missing Personnel, Far East (Dependants' Allowances).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will be able to make any statement before the rising of the House for the Summer Recess regarding the payment, at least up to the end of December, 1942, of allowances to dependants of persons lost or missing in Malaya and Singapore?

Sir J. Grigg: Allowances at the present rates will be paid for 43 weeks from the dates on which relatives have been notified of a casualty, provided that the officer or soldier remains posted as missing during this time.

Mr. Stokes: I am afraid my arithmetic is not quick enough to understand that one. Does the Minister recollect that on 14th July he told the House that the allowances would be continued until 14th October? I want to ascertain that they will be continued, certainly until the end of the year, in view of the fact that Parliament is to rise and it is unfair to leave these people in any dubiety?

Sir J. Grigg: There is no dubiety about this Under the ordinary regulations the allowances are continued for 17 weeks after notification, and the period has now been extended by six whole months; that is perfectly clear.

Sports Goods and Equipment.

Sir A. Southby: asked the Secretary of State for War why it has been decided that the distribution of sports goods to the Army shall be entirely in the hands of the

Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; and for what reasons have the services of the experienced retail suppliers been discarded?

Mr. Dalton: I have been asked to reply. The serious shortage of rubber and other materials has made it necessary to give priority in the supply of certain sports goods and equipment to the Services, schools, and other sports organisations. As regards supplies for the Army, the War Office have undertaken to keep within a definite allocation, and I understand that in their view centralised buying and distribution is the only practicable method of rationing the limited supplies among the various units.

Sir A. Southby: Is the Minister aware that distribution among Army units would be more satisfactorily carried out through trade distributive channels instead of being in the hands of N.A.A.F.I., who are not in a position to know the requirements or the location of the units?

Mr. Dalton: This matter has been discussed between the War Office and my Department, and in the view of both of us this is the best method.

Sir A. Southby: Has it been discussed with representatives of the retail trade, because it is they who are suffering as, a result of the decision come to?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War when he last called for, and received, a comprehensive report on the despatch of parcels to British prisoners of war in Italy; whether he is aware that in certain cases only one Red Cross parcel out of every three despatched reaches the prisoners and that there is a large loss of private parcels sent from this country, so causing much distress among prisoners' relatives; what is the reason for these losses; and what steps are being taken to prevent them?

Sir J. Grigg: I receive regular and comprehensive reports regarding the despatch of parcels to British prisoners in Italy, and the proportion of Red Cross parcels which do not reach prisoners is almost negligible. As regards private parcels, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who is not aware that there has been any large loss of either


next-of-kin parcels sent through the Red Cross Society or of private parcels sent through firms holding a censorship permit.

Mr. Stewart: If I send my right hon. Friend the details of the question I put to him last week in regard to a particular officer, who is not a senior officer, will he be so good as to look into it?

Sir J. Grigg: Certainly. It all depends on the date of my hon. Friend's information. At two camps there was a time when parcels were slow in getting forward, but that, I believe, has been rectified, and the figure I have given of the negligible amount of pilfering is based on a report of the International Red Cross Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

Hill-Sheep Subsidy.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that if hill-sheep stocks are to be maintained an announcement on future Government policy in connection with the hill-sheep-subsidy payment is desirable before the autumn ewe sales are held; and will he indicate whether such an announcement will be made before these sales take place?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The question of further subsidy assistance to the hill-sheep industry is under consideration. My hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of dealing with this matter until there is some information as to price-levels at the various sales. I am aware, however, of the importance many people attach to an early announcement, and every effort will be made to expedite a decision.

Mr. Snadden: Will the Minister bear in mind that at our autumn lamb sales prices will have to rise at least 4s. per head before hill breeders can participate in the rise already given in respect of fat sheep? It is a very important point, and I hope my hon. Friend will bear it in mind. The position will not be improved in respect of 1942 as against 1941 until the rise indicated takes place.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member will be aware that the decision last year was not formally announced until towards the end of November, but the point he makes will be borne in mind.

School-Leaving Certificates.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of children, leaving school at 14 years of age, secured the day-school certificate, lower, during the years 1940 and 1941?

Mr. Johnston: The Day Schools (Scotland) Code, 1939, which has been in-operation since 1st September, 1939, makes no provision for the award of a lower day-school certificate. Instead of these certificates which were formerly awarded, education authorities may now issue a statement indicating the particular stage of advancement the pupil has reached.

Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister aware children of 14 are leaving school without any tangible evidence that they have received an adequate education, and employers are very chary about engaging them? Will he look into this matter?

Mr. Johnston: Inquiries are being made now as to how far these statements which local education authorities may issue are being awarded.

Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister aware that not 10 per cent. of the children leaving school attain the day-school certificate standard?

Mr. Johnston: I do not think that the figure which my hon. Friend quotes is very far out.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER.

Petroleum Board (Profits).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how, and generally to whom, the profits made by the Petroleum Board are distributed?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The profits made by the Petroleum Board are distributed among the companies which are members of the Board on a basis agreed among themselves.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor told me on 17th June that the oil industry did not receive any profits from the Petroleum Board?

Major Lloyd George: I think the Question on that date had something to do with Lend-Lease supplies.

Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. If the Minister will refer to that Question, he will see that I received a categorical "No" to my Question of whether profits were paid by the Petroleum Board to the oil industry.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the profits made by the Petroleum Board for the years ending 31st December, 1939, 1940 and 1941, or other convenient period?

Major Lloyd George: I fear I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on 17th June.

Mr. Stokes: As that reply is also unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment to-day.

Oil Shale, West Somerset.

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the scarcity of oil, he will reconsider the potentialities of petrol and lubricating oil production from West Somerset oil shale?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Member is aware, this question has been fully investigated. There is no reason to suppose that another investigation would lead to different conclusions.

Mr. Bartlett: Will the Minister bear in mind that this shale has a very high oil content, that the investigation was not considered satisfactory by a certain number of neutral experts, and that the need for oil has become very much greater since then?

Coal Supplies, Bristol.

Mr. A. G. Walkden: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether he is aware that the supplies of coal now reaching Bristol are hardly sufficient to meet current requirements; that merchants are unable to accumulate reserves; and, as house-holders are apprehensive that, during the oncoming winter, they will again suffer inconvenience and hardship, will he will make great supplies available together with proper arrangements for rationing before the approach of cold weather?

Major Lloyd George: It has recently been necessary to divert from Bristol a certain quantity of house coal which would normally have gone there; but this

operation has now been completed, and arrangements are being made under which merchants' stocks in Bristol may be expected from now onwards steadily to increase until the beginning of winter. On the question of rationing, I have nothing to add to the statement made to the House on the 10th June last by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that throughout the whole of the summer season the Co-operative Society, responsible for the distribution of one-third of the supplies, has been unable to obtain any coal?

Major Lloyd George: I should like to have particulars. The reasons during the summer months are as I have stated. Those reasons have now disappeared, and I hope things will be better shortly.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that I deal with the Co-operatives and have not been able to get my share since May?

Petrol Allowance (Dean of Canterbury).

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether his attention has been drawn to a journey by motor-car of 160 miles each way to attend a political meeting made by the Dean of Canterbury on 10th July, 1942; whether he will make inquiry as to the amount of supplementary petrol allotted to this gentleman and for what purpose it was so allotted?

Major Lloyd George: A small allowance is made to the Dean of Canterbury for journeys in connection with the duties of his office. I have no information as to the journey to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but I am making inquiries.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May we take it that there is no differentiation in the amount of petrol allowed to a Communist speaker, as compared with the amount which would be allowed to a Tory or Liberal speaker?

Major Lloyd George: They can all apply.

Major Petherick: Will the Minister take into consideration that it would be wholly outrageous, if this allegation were true, to give a 320 mile petrol allowance to a


prelate of notoriously subversive views, when allowances are cut down for members of the Army, Navy and Air Force?

Sir Herbert Williams: Was there much social credit attached to this journey?

Economy Campaign.

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Minister of-Fuel and Power whether the proposed propaganda campaign to secure the voluntary rationing of fuel is shortly to be started; and, if so, by whom?

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what further steps are being taken for a national campaign for fuel saving so as to avoid the rationing of fuel?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement on this subject which my right hon. Friend made in the House on the 28th July in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) and the hon. and gallant Member for Loughborough (Major Kimball).

Sir P. Hurd: Has my hon. Friend noticed that my Question asked what further steps have been taken, and what results have been attained by the campaign which has gone on for a long' time now?

Mr. Smith: It is impossible at the moment to state what progress has been made, but what can be said is that every consideration has been given to the subject and that efforts are being made to secure the necessary economies.

Sir P. Hurd: But what further efforts are in progress?

Mr. Smith: Steps of all kinds, like consultations with different organisations, engineering employers and so on, and the setting up of committees in various districts in order to get ahead with the subject.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Has the hon. Member considered a postponement of the cessation of double summer time as a means of saving fuel?

Mr. Smith: There is another Question on that subject.

Traffic Lights.

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in the interests of national economy, he will consider reducing the number of traffic lights?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. As I said in my answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the member for Halifax (Mr. Gledhill) on 29th July, local authorities have been asked to consider what further economies can safely and usefully be made.

Mr. Bowles: Will the Minister take into consideration the amount of petrol which is wasted when motor bus and other internal combustion engines are ticking over, and the light used in these lamps and also the wastage of rubber in cars having unnecessarily to pull up?

Mr. Noel-Baker: All those considerations will be kept in mind, but we must remember the danger from accidents to vehicles on the roads and also the use of man-power in switching off the lights and in other ways.

Motor Car Hire (New Order).

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what new Order has been, or is being, issued in relation to the limitation of use of hired motor-cars and drive-yourself hirings, respectively; what are the terms; and when is it operative?

Major Lloyd George: I have made a new Order further restricting the use of motor fuel in hired cars, whether with or without a driver. Copies are now available in the Statutory Rules and Orders series, 1942, No. 1469. In view of certain new requirements, I have thought it desirable to allow time for hire-car operators to adjust their arrangements, and the new Order comes into force on 1st September.

Major Lyons: Do I take it that between now and 1st September there is no restriction?

Major Lloyd George: The Order will come into operation on the 1st.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in the proposed Orders limiting journeys in hired motorcars, he will make provisions for journeys exceeding 10 miles for ordinary purposes in the more remote rural areas?

Major Lloyd George: In view of the urgent need to save fuel, I regret I cannot see my way to extend the area of 10 miles within which unrestricted hiring may be undertaken. I should like to add, however, that the new Hire Service Order which will come into force on 1st September allows the use of petrol for journeys within a radius of 75 miles for urgent business or domestic purposes for which other means of travel are not reasonably practicable.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will increase the petrol allowance for motor-cars for private hire in the more remote rural areas?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the fuel allowances for private hire cars in rural and other areas are reasonably adequate.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that in a great many matters, and particularly in this, people in rural districts, especially very remote ones, have a feeling that the officials in the towns know more about the towns and are more sympathetic to them? Will he try to remove that feeling by giving some preference to remoter areas, where clearly the need is very much greater?

Major Lloyd George: I fully appreciate that the needs of the rural areas in the matter of transport are greater than in the towns, and that is why there has been a difference made between them.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend recognise that it is absolutely essential in every village to have at least one car available for cases of sickness?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Head of the Civil Service.

Mr. William Brown: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to announce the Government's decision on recommendations made to him to separate the function of the control of the Civil Service from that of the Permanent Secretary of the Civil Service?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): This matter has been considered, and, as my hon. Friend will have seen,

Sir Richard Hopkins, G.C.B., has been appointed as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and Official Head of His Majesty's Civil Service.

Mr. Brown: Are we to assume that the Government have completely rejected the idea of separating these two quite different functions, and, if that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman say so definitely?

Mr. Attlee: The appointment made is as I have replied. The point the hon. Member has put was fully considered and rejected.

Sir P. Harris: Has the giving of this title of Head of the Civil Service to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury any legal status, or is it done on the action of the Government?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think it is done under Statute, but I understand it has been in use for 70 years.

Sir William Davison: Has this official any control in the particular Department apart from supervising the finances?

Mr. Attlee: Obviously he does not control the Department. His duties in his position as Head of the Civil Service have been set out in great detail, I cannot set them all out now, but it is not a matter of detailed control of the Department.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the head of the Treasury is also head of the Establishments Division of the Treasury, and that the Establishments Division exercises very close control over all kinds of staff questions in all the Departments? Is he not further aware that Treasury control is regarded by administrators and staff alike as improperly vested in that Department and that it ought to be vested elsewhere?

Mr. Attlee: I am aware of the hon. Member's point of view.

Publicity (Printing).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether clerks of stationery in Government Departments are still required to notify the Stationery Office in all cases before putting special work in hand for display, copywriting of advertisements, and carrying out special or large publicity schemes; and whether


he will ensure that all Government printing shall be passed through one central department?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The Ministry of Information is the central organ for the conduct of Government publicity. Display advertising in the Press, on behalf of all Government Departments except two, is the responsibility of that Department. I assume, however, that my hon. Friend has also in mind work in connection with printing of posters, etc. In regard to such work there has been no change in the long standing arrangement whereby Government printing in general is ordered through His Majesty's Stationery Office.

Mr. De la Bère: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend tell me for which of the two the Ministry of Information are not responsible?

Captain Crookshank: The Ministry of Food and the National Savings Committee.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend endeavour to get real efficiency in this publicity scheme, because there seems to be no set method now?

Gratuities (Next-of-Kin).

Mr. Frankel: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the gratuity paid to the next-of-kin of a deceased Civil Servant forms part of the estate of the deceased; whether it can be claimed by creditors, including the Inland Revenue Commissioners, when the estate, other than the gratuity, is insufficient to meet such claims; under what statutory authority a gratuity may so be claimed; and whether he will furnish particulars of cases falling under this head affecting the administrators of estates of deceased Civil Servants?

Captain Crookshank: As the answer is rather long, I will ask my hon. Friend's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

If, as I assume, my hon. Friend is referring to the gratuity payable in respect of an established Civil Servant under Section 2 (1) of the Superannuation Act,

1919, such gratuity is not payable to the next-of-kin as such, but to his legal personal representatives, on receipt by whom it becomes part of the estate of the deceased. The first duty of the executors or administrators is to discharge, out of the estate, any debts owed by the deceased, and as the gratuity forms part of the estate it is available, without special statutory authority, for the payment of debts including those due to the Inland Revenue authorities. I am unable to furnish details of particular cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider so altering the Pensions Warrant of 1940 as to empower the Pensions Appeal Tribunal established by Lord Chancellor Birkenhead in 1919 to deal with present war appellants?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions explained to the House on 23rd July the difficulties in the way of setting up Pensions Appeal Tribunals to deal with present war cases. These would not in any way be disposed of by the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir A. Knox: If the Lord Chancellor set up this tribunal, why should the constitution of new tribunals which are going to sit in judgment on his decisions be left to the Minister of Pensions?

Mr. Attlee: The existing tribunals deal with cases from the last war. The difficulty is to get adequate staff for a new tribunal.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

War Damage Payments (Excess Profits Tax).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now been able to look into the case, to which his attention has been drawn, where the Inland Revenue has been treating payments by the War Damage Commission in respect of stock destroyed by enemy action as a constructive sale, the profits of which are liable to Excess Profits Tax, notwithstanding the fact that the whole of such payments are required for the replacement of the stock destroyed; and what action it is proposed to take to deal with cases of this kind?

Sir K. Wood: I have carefully considered the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and I regret I cannot see my way to propose any alteration of the law under which payments received in compensation for destroyed trading stocks, in common with insurance payments or payments that may be made for compulsory acquisition of trading stocks, fall to be included as trading receipts for the purpose of computation of trading profit.

Sir W. Davison: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the Treasury's interpretation of the law, in treating a payment by the War Damage Commission as a constructive sale, means the ruin of many old-established businesses? That was never intended to be the result of the Excess Profits Tax and, when the matter was discussed on 9th June, all parties, including the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury, urged that this inequity should not continue?

Sir K. Wood: I could not assent to all that my hon. Friend has said. He has given me one case in which I regret that there are certain circumstances which make for a degree of hardship, but I do not think I could propose an alteration in the law.

Sir W. Davison: That is only an example of many other cases, and, even if there is only one case, why should one man be unjustly treated?

Requisitioned Premises (Compensation).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why persons whose houses or premises have been requisitioned by Government Departments or local authorities are not entitled to reclaim compensation in respect of any new materials in the way of black-out, floorcloths and other things which it is found necessary to purchase to make the new premises habitable, and where the old materials removed from their old premises are not suitable; and whether steps will be taken to, see that persons whose premises are requisitioned are adequately compensated for all losses they have thereby incurred, whether in respect of the purchase of necessary new materials or otherwise?

Sir K. Wood: As was explained to my hon. Friend in answer to his Question on 15th July, the expenses in respect of which compensation is payable are those

laid down in the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. Expenses reasonably incurred for the purpose of compliance with a direction to give vacant possession of the requisitioned premises can be met under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, and this provision has been construed as liberally as possible but it does not cover the purchase of new materials.

Sir W. Davison: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that in the case of defective black-out the police will not accept the excuse that the black-out removed from the old premises does not fit? Surely the unfortunate man who has had to give up his house and get a new black-out, often costing many pounds, ought to receive compensation?

Sir K. Wood: I regret the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but he will see the position.

Income Tax (Non-Resident Foreigners).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the case of two Swiss citizens resident in Switzerland who derive a considerable income from a British company; that pending a settlement of Excess Profits Tax and Income Tax, they desired to make a payment on account to the Treasury out of the funds standing to their credit in this country, but were informed by the Bank of England Foreign Exchange Control, that before it will be permissible for this payment to be made, it will be necessary for the bank to be satisfied that these sums are available for transfer to Switzerland; and why he is preventing foreigners discharging their obligations in respect of United Kingdom taxation for which they are liable?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but I am quite unable to accept the implications contained in my hon. Friend's Question. The effect of the Defence (Finance) Regulations is that any debt due in the sterling area by a person resident elsewhere can only be paid by the remittance of foreign exchange or by the use of sterling funds properly due and transferable to a resident outside the sterling area. It is therefore not permissible for residents in the sterling area to pay debts on behalf of non-residents except with such funds. I am satisfied that this provision is necessary in order to protect the country's foreign exchange position. Under these circumstances I think that my hon. Friend


will agree that the inquiries in this case were properly and reasonably made in order to secure satisfactory evidence to show that the funds in question were properly due and transferable to nonresidents and could therefore be used to discharge their obligations.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not rather absurd that when two Swiss gentlemen earn money in this country and it is placed to their credit in this country and they want to pay their taxes, the Bank of England writes to the custodian company that they must not pay the money to the Chancellor?

Sir K. Wood: It is not quite as easy as my hon. Friend says. No doubt these Swiss gentlemen would rather welcome the suggestion that he has made.

Sir H. Williams: The only money they have is money that they made in this country. Why should they not pay their taxes in this country?

Sir K. Wood: It is obviously in this country's interest that that course should not be adopted.

Evacuated Premises (Compensation).

Captain De Chair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unprecendented circumstances attending the dislocation of whole populations in certain areas for battle training purposes, he will consider amending the Compensation Act so as to provide compensation in such cases for loss of profit where a person, so dispossessed, has been dependent for his livelihood upon a small business built up over a number of years, such as a shop or public-house and for which, under the present arrangements, he is to receive no consideration whatever?

Sir K. Wood: I have, as I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend, been in close touch with the Departments immediately concerned with the consequences of the requisitioning of these areas, and I am satisfied that they are co-operating to do their utmost to minimise the hardship which the needs of the War Office have unavoidably created. I regret, however, that I cannot introduce legislation to provide special compensation for loss of profits. This kind of loss unfortunately arises in many ways as the

result of the war, and the Government have frequently made it plain that it lies outside the scope of the compensation they have undertaken, or are able, to provide.

Captain De Chair: Is it not a fact that this is an entirely new set of circumstances and that my right hon. Friend is taking up the position of a chicken which stands hypnotised in front of a white line?

Sir K. Wood: I do not quite feel like that, but rather as the protector of the public purse.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that compensation for goodwill to these small people would amount to only about one per cent. of the total cost of this evacuation?

Sir K. Wood: I could not say that. The hon. Member will realise that there would be very many repercussions.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

Concentration of Industry (Soft Drinks).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in connection with the proposed abolition of trade marks, labels, goodwill and brands in the pooling of products resulting from the concentration of manufacture in the soft drinks industry, he will take into consideration the prejudicial effect of such an arrangement on old-established firms and on export trade with the complicated financial arrangements necessary to provide compensation; and whether he is satisfied that such conditional pooling is necessary?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The considerations referred to by my hon. Friend were taken fully into account by, my Noble Friend in reaching his decision. The industry was consulted beforehand. My Noble Friend is satisfied that the arrangements are necessary to secure the needed economies in production and distribution and the most equitable treatment possible of all concerned.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that there is a widespread feeling that these regulations are unfair and unnecessary and that they are Socialistic in design and calculated to bring everybody down to one level?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir. It is undoubtedly true to say that they are supported by the overwhelming majority of the more responsible elements in the trade.

Mr. De la Bère: That cannot be quite correct. My hon. Friend must think again.

Mr. Mabane: It is quite correct.

Sir L. Lyle: Can I give my hon. Friend evidence?

Prosecutions.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made against Arthur Warner, of the Leicester Company, Limited, for breaches of the Maximum Prices Orders, because he and others purchased 5,094 head of poultry; and whether he has seen the statement made by the presiding magistrate, Mr. J. K. Kelly, who heard the case?

Mr. Mabane: Arthur Warner (Leicester) Limited were convicted on 41 summonses for breach of the Poultry (Maximum Prices) Order and the Fish (Maximum Prices) Order, and Arthur Warner was convicted on 41 summonses for aiding and abetting the company. The summonses related to offences of buying above the maximum price and entering into artificial transactions. The company on each of the 41 summonses was fined £75 and ordered to pay 100 guineas in respect of the costs and the same penalty was inflicted on Warner. I have read the statement made by the presiding magistrate.

Mr. Thorne: Is not this a very bad case, and ought not the firm to be put out of action altogether?

Mr. Mabane: It is a very bad case, but my hon. Friend will see that the penalties were very substantial.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this company still continues to trade, and will he see whether further action is not necessary against it?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE-GUARDS (AMENDING ORDER).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

ment whether he is aware that there are men who are not performing either are guard duty or other part-time National Service; what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter; and whether the number of additional Fire Guards so obtainable is likely to make good existing deficiencies?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): Yes, Sir. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to remedy these defects by directing that supplementary registration should be held under the Compulsory Enrolment Order. An Order amending that Order and containing this and other provisions to the same end will be issued within the next few days. I do not expect that the additional Fire Guards so obtainable will be sufficient to make good existing deficiencies, and other remedies are being examined.

Mr. Montague: Will my hon. Friend put that answer in plain English?

Miss Wilkinson: I am afraid it is a bit technical. What we mean is that a lot of people did not for various reasons register on the appointed day. We tried to catch these people under Regulation 29BA, under which any man of these ages could be directed to perform duties. That did not work as well as we thought it would, and the Minister of Labour and the Home Secretary have now agreed to have a supplementary registration. This will catch all those people who should have registered and bring them under the new supplementary Order.

Mr. Naylor: Are any penalties to be imposed for failure to comply?

Miss Wilkinson: No, Sir, because quite a lot of the people who will be brought in were legitimately out of the previous Order. There were people who were not in their homes at the time of the registration and others who had not reached the ages. There were so many different reasons for not registering that it is impossible to sort out those who might come under penalties. It is much better to say, "Will you please all come in because it is urgent?"

Mr. Messer: Will those who have permanent exemption have to register?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Dunn: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, during the last war, 1914 to 1918, the coal controller issued an instruction that war wages increases paid to miners must not be taken into consideration when computing partial compensation payments to injured miners; and whether he will now issue similar instructions, to be made retrospective to the outbreak of the war?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend is aware of the instruction to which my hon. Friend refers, but has no authority to issue any similar instruction. As was explained in replies to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 23rd of last month, the position has been materially altered since the last war by the provision in Section 11 (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, which was enacted for the purpose of enabling workmen in receipt of weekly payments, whether for total or partial incapacity, in certain circumstances to get the benefit of increases in rates of remuneration.

Mr. Dunn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men entitled to partial compensation under that Section are not receiving it and that deep anxiety exists over it?

Mr. Peake: Parliament in its wisdom provided this means of dealing with these cases in 1923, and in my view it ought to be utilised before we consider possible alternatives.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling in working-class circles that the time is overdue for a complete overhauling of this compensation matter?

Mr. Dunn: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give an assurance that, where a wife has been living with her husband, prior to his decease, and earning wages, such wages shall not be reckoned as earnings when assessing her dependency for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. Peake: As I explained to the hon. Member for East Durham (Mr. Ritson) on 25th June, the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act is that compensation is payable in respect of the death of a workman to persons wholly or partially dependent on the earnings of the person at

the time of his death, and the question of the extent of dependency is one to be decided by the court on the facts of each case, but I am advised that where a widow was in employment at the time of his death, the court would have power to take into account how far the employment was of a regular and permanent character or temporary only.

Mr. Dunn: Surely the Minister is aware that miners' wives who have gone into munition works are deeply disturbed about this? I am afraid that many of them may perhaps take another course altogether.

Mr. Peake: This question was raised on 25th June by the hon. Member for East Durham (Mr. Ritson), and I asked that any hard cases which were known should be sent to the Home Office. Only one case was sent, and that was a case where the amount had been agreed between the parties and it had not been taken to the county court.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless there is a clear line laid down on this matter it may have a detrimental effect on the number of women who are working?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend has expressed himself as willing to take action in this matter if hard cases are shown to exist.

Mr. Dunn: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the resolutions passed at the conference of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain last week at Blackpool on the question of Workmen's Compensation, and if he has any statement to make on the matter?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend has been good enough to send to the Home Office a copy of these resolutions, and they have been noted. Two of the resolutions relate to matters which were dealt with in replies given to a Question on 25th June by the hon. Member for East Durham (Mr. Ritson) and to a Question on 23rd July by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I would also refer to the reply given on 16th July to a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Mr. Dunn: Is the Minister contemplating meeting the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain to discuss these resolutions?

Mr. Peake: I shall be meeting my friends the executive of the Miners' Federation on another matter very shortly, and I have no doubt that they will take the opportunity to raise the matters incorporated in those resolutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANKS (AIR CONDITIONING).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Production whether he has now obtained actual statistics or reports from men engaged in the operations enabling him to state definitely whether our tanks in Egypt are as cool as those used by the Germans?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the answer given on 29th July.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Production whether he will give the names of the members of the panel set up to inquire into the possibility of improving the ventilation of tanks either by use of refrigeration or by air conditioning?

Mr. Lyttelton: The panel consists of: Mr. S. A. Wood, M.Sc., Senior Scientific Officer in the Ministry of Supply Scientific Research Department; Dr. Dorey, D.Sc., Wh.Ex., Member of the Council of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Chief Engineer Surveyor, Lloyd's Register; and Dr. E. Griffiths, D.Sc., F.R.S., Principal Scientific Officer in the Physics Department of the National Physical Laboratory. They consult freely with appropriate specialists in other Government Departments and in industry on the various problems of research, development and manufacture which arise in their inquiries.

Sir A. Knox: Has this panel actually begun its sittings?

Mr. Lyttelton: I understand so.

Mr. Granville: Have any of these gentlemen or any of the advisers associated with this body been to the Western Desert to get any actual experience of tanks, and if not will my right hon. Friend as Minister of Production take care to send somebody there?

Mr. Lyttelton: These gentlemen will have the benefit of advice and reports from the Western Desert.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREMISES, PORTSMOUTH (COMPULSORY PURCHASE).

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Admiralty are now purchasing compulsorily a number of small dwellings in Portsea, Portsmouth, immediately adjacent and forming a salient into the Royal Dockyard under powers given by the Defence Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919; that the price given thereunder to a dispossessed owner is the market value as at the date of the notice to treat; and, whether as the effects of the war in vulnerable areas like the city of Portsmouth have seriously deteriorated the market values, he will consider taking a fairer basis than depressed market values upon which to enforce the purchase of lands such as those referred to?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): The decision to acquire the small properties which form a salient into His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, was taken in January, 1938. Prices for about half the properties concerned were agreed with their owners in 1938 and 1939, and contracts were made for their sale at those prices, to be completed when the owners were ready to give possession. The purchase of these properties has since been duly completed at the prices agreed. Agreements for the acquisition of the remaining properties had not been arranged at the time that the damage or destruction of many of the premises by enemy action made it urgently necessary, for reasons of safety, to clear the entire site. The Admiralty therefore compulsorily purchased the properties, in their damaged state, at their then market value, being advised that this was the right and proper basis in the circumstances of the case, but arrangements were first made with the War Damage Commission for all the premises to be surveyed, in order to conserve to the owners their full statutory right to compensation under the War Damage Act, 1941.
As I have already stated, the basis adopted was considered to be the right and proper one in the circumstances. I cannot at present say whether any other basis could be substituted, but I am


having the matter examined and will inform my right hon. and gallant Friend of the result.

Sir H. Williams: Is not the basis of valuation for the purposes of the War Damage Act the valuation on 31st March, 1939, and not-any subsequent valuation?

Captain Pilkington: That may be so, but it will be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance regarding the transfer of Questions after they have been handed in at the Table? I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War which appears on the Order Paper to his name. When the Question was reached it was answered by another Minister, the President of the Board of Trade. If arising out of the answer some matter came up on which a Supplementary Question could properly have been asked which had to deal with the Army—which was the point I had in mind when I put down the Question—the fact that the original Question was being answered by the President of the Board of Trade makes it impossible for that Supplementary Question to be answered. I received no notification that my Question was not to be answered by the Minister to whom I addressed it in the first place and I suggest that steps might be taken to inform Members in good time if the Minister to whom the Question was addressed is not replying but has in fact "passed the buck" to another Minister.

Mr. Bartlett: Further to that point of Order. I should like to ask what happens in the case of Question 21. I was not notified of the change. I do not think it would have made any difference if I had been notified, because in point of fact the Ministry of Agriculture cannot reach the decision as to when members of the Women's Land Army are to be admitted to the canteens. The matter was decided in principle weeks ago but there is still delay because, I understand, the War Office has instituted a whole lot of inquiries as to the whereabouts of the Women's Land Army before a decision can be given. Therefore, it seems to me that if the Question were transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture I could not get a satisfactory reply.

Mr. Speaker: I have received a note from the Board of Agriculture which says that the hon. Member had asked for the Question to be deferred from the first Sitting Day to the second Sitting Day.

Mr. Bartlett: I was notified by telephone when I was in the country that it would help the Minister of Agriculture if a Question which I had put down for to-day could be deferred, but I did not know for one moment that it was a Question which I had put down to the War Office.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members have sought my advice on this matter many times. I can never quite understand why, if Members put a Question to the wrong Department, they should object to its being transferred to the right Department.

Sir A. Southby: May I point out that my Question has to do with the distribution of sports goods to the Army, and it seems to me that nothing could be more germane to the Army than that? How that Question could be best answered by the President of the Board of Trade instead of by the Army I do not understand.

Mr. Speaker: As far as I can see, the Question deals with two different subjects, concerning both the War Office and the Board of Trade. It is very difficult for two Departments to answer the same question.

Sir A. Southby: But my Question specifically refers to the distribution of sports goods to the Army.

Orders of the Day — UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (VISITING FORCES) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill before the House has come to us from another place, where it was passed through all its stages with speed, and the Government ask that the House will be so good to-day as to pass the Bill through all its stages here. The short and clear-cut purpose of the Bill is to provide that all criminal offences, on the part of members of the Armed Forces of the United States, shall be removed from the jurisdiction of the British courts. The matter arises in this way. The Government of the United States are, as the House knows, sending numbers of members of the Armed Forces of the United States to this country. As time goes on, those numbers will increase. It is the considered opinion of the Government of the United States that it is most expedient, and from their constitutional point of view is right, that any offences on the part of members of the American Armed Forces should be tried by their


own military courts and not by the British courts. The American authorities have pressed that point of view upon us with great vigour and earnestness;
There are a number of considerations which led the American authorities to that view, a view in which His Majesty's Government have concurred. One is that the American members of the American Armed Forces are, of course, accustomed to their own procedure and the principles of their own law, and although it is not dissimilar in principle from the law of the United Kingdom, nevertheless they will be more familiar in dealing with their own authorities in their own customary way. There is the further point, which is a very practical one and which is not unimportant from our own point of view, that if members of the American Armed Forces who were alleged to be guilty of a criminal offence were brought into the British courts by a British authority, the American authorities would feel that it was necessary for them to provide defence for their men in our courts, whereas if they can try them they will have a freer hand to see that the appropriate punishments are inflicted by their own volition. They have given us every assurance that the punishments in the case of their own military courts dealing with offenders would, taking it broadly, fee not less severe than if the cases were dealt with in British courts.
In short, the American view is that constitutionally it is desirable, and indeed necessary, that where their troops go American legal authority should go with them. We have felt that in all the circumstances the American claim was well based and that it ought to be conceded both from their point of view and, as a practical matter, from our own point of view as well. Moreover, even if we were disposed on the merits of the case to resist the claim of the Government of the United States, we should be in a rather poor debating position because we ourselves successfully made precisely the same claim in the case of the British Forces in France in the last war when our military courts were given a jurisdiction somewhat similar to that now being claimed by the Government of the United States. Therefore, His Majesty's Government have thought it right that the claim of the American authorities should be agreed to. We believe it is in the interests of good feeling between the two

countries, and particularly in the matter of good feeling between our own population and our own authorities and the American Forces; I know the whole House is glad to see them in our country and will do what it can to give them a cordial, pleasant and happy welcome.
The Allied Forces Act, 1940, enabled the Allied Governments generally to set up their own courts to deal with matters of discipline and internal administration within their Armed Forces, and therefore, as far as the internal discipline and administration of their own Armed Forces are concerned, it is already established by law in this country that the law of the Allies applies to them. All that this Bill does is to extend to the very considerable American Forces a similar position in relationship to criminal offences in this country. This, of course, is a matter of very great importance and a very substantial extension, the importance of which I do not wish in any way to under-estimate to the House. The present position is that there is a dual jurisdiction. At the moment the American Armed Forces, through their appropriate military courts and so on, have jurisdiction over those cases and so have the British courts of justice. What this Bill does is to oust the British courts of justice from jurisdiction in cases of criminal offences.
I have already stated the general reasons for bringing in this Bill, and I would only add this, that there is a large number of American troops in this country already and that number will increase as time goes on. It is the case that the fundamental principles of British law and United States law are not dissimilar. There are, of course, certain differences, but in fundamental principle the law of the United States and the law of this country march on much the same hues. As I have said, the penalties will, in our judgment and in the judgment of the American authorities, be clearly adequate, judged by British standards. I would like to add that the American Army and Naval authorities and the American diplomatic authorities have shown every willingness to co-operate with us and to be helpful in the discussions which have taken place. Accordingly, we anticipate no friction in the relationships between our own authorities and the American authorities, because the American authorities have been exceedingly helpful and co-operative


all the way through and we are perfectly confident that this will continue after this Bill is passed.
The main provisions of the Notes exchanged between the two Governments will be familiar to the House; they are, indeed, set out, because we thought it desirable that they should be so set out, as a Schedule to the Bill, and I think that they, in themselves, make perfectly plain the purpose of the Bill. The House may wish to be assured that any offence against our criminal law will be covered by the American military law. This law, which runs to a considerable number of articles on specific points, has an Article 96 which, I think, amply covers the miscellaneous sort of offence that might not otherwise be covered in specific articles of the American military law. I think that Article 96, which I will read to the House, picks up and covers all the kinds of miscellaneous criminal offences that we might think of. The Article reads:
Though not mentioned in these Articles, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service, and all crimes or offences not capital of which persons subject to military law may be guilty, shall be taken cognisance of by a general or special or summary court martial according to the nature and degree of the offence, and punished at the discretion of such court.
I think the House will agree that those terms are very wide indeed.

Mr. Silverman: What is meant by the words "not capital"?

Mr. Morrison: They mean an offence short of the offence of murder, which presumably is covered somewhere else in the military law. Probably that is what is meant, but if I am not right in saying that, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to deal with the matter later. The terms I have read out are very wide and general, and I think they are likely to pick up all the range of criminal offences known to our law. Indeed, such an assurance has been given to us by the American authorities, who believe there is no need for apprehension on that point. Generally speaking, their penalties are as severe as ours, and, indeed, in some cases their penalties are more severe. There is a provision for

the waiver of the exclusive American jurisdiction in particular cases. It might be the case that there was an offence in a distant part of the United Kingdom where it would be needlessly troublesome for the American authorities to send a court-martial and where they themselves might make representations to us that it would be more convenient in this isolated and distant case for the British courts to take it, and on those representations being received a Secretary of State may make an order that the British court can take that case. It is probable that the Secretary of State in this instance would be my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but the order can lawfully be made by any Secretary of State.
That provision is thought to be convenient and appropriate to deal with these exceptional cases. It does not follow from that that the British authorities are bound to proceed with the prosecution. If our Director of Public Prosecutions or the police thought that a case would not stand up to court proceedings they would have discretion as to whether to proceed or not. The proceedings, so far as the American authorities are concerned will be in open court unless security considerations require otherwise. Of course, that obtains in our own courts as well. Generally speaking, proceedings will be taken in open court. The American authorities have assured us that they will be prompt in taking proceedings, and will do their best to see to it that the proceedings are heard as near as possible to the place of the alleged crime.

Earl Winterton: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he deal with this question What happens if there is a joint criminal charge; for instance, if there is a black-marketing case against two American soldiers and two British subjects?

Mr. Morrison: If it is not quite clear as to where a case should go, there will be discussions between the American and our own authorities, and we will mutually agree about it. That seems to be the only way in which these borderline cases can be sorted out. It is part of the Agreement between the two Governments that alleged offences which occurred before 7th December, 1941, will not come within the operation of this Measure. That date,


of course, is the date of the American entry into the war. It was thought there should be that limit in time.
The question has been raised by the Government, as we felt that the House would wish us to do, as to reciprocity on the American side. It is the case that circumstances are very different on the other side, for there are few British troops in the United States. Therefore as a practical issue it hardly arises. But our American friends have agreed that if and when it becomes a practical issue the American Government will do all they can to see that appropriate reciprocity is given to us in a similar way. There is machinery existing, which will be developed, for co-operation between ourselves and the American military authorities. Finally, it is intended that the Agreement shall remain in force until six months after the restoration of a state of peace, unless mutual agreement is otherwise reached at the time.
As to the Bill itself, the main provisions are clear, I think, on the face of them. The Bill recites the Notes and incorporates them as a Schedule to the Bill. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), provides that no criminal proceedings shall be prosecuted in the United Kingdom before any court of the United Kingdom against a member of the military or naval forces of the United States of America, subject to the proviso to which I have referred. Clause 1, Sub-section (2), makes it clear that the police powers of arrest, search, entry or custody are not affected by the Bill; they continue. Provision is made for establishing machinery for handing over offenders to the United States authorities to be dealt with by the United States Service Tribunals. A similar agreement in principle has been reached and is being implemented, I understand, in the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand. The only other point I would mention is that civil proceedings are in no way affected by this Bill, which is solely directed to criminal offences. I think I have covered the broad grounds of the purpose of the Bill. His Majesty's Government take the view that the American authorities have made a not unreasonable claim, a claim in fact which we successfully made in the case of the British army in France in the last war. We think, as the House will agree, that it is of the utmost importance that there should be smooth and friendly co-

operation between ourselves and the American military and naval Forces. We are assured that there will be every helpfulness and co-operation on the part of our American friends, which help and cooperation we wish on our side to give. In all the circumstances I hope that the House will be good enough to give us the Bill through all its stages to-day.

Mr. Riley: Would my right hon. Friend make clear one point which was not quite clear to me—his reference to capital criminal offences? Will he tell us whether, in the event of a member of the military or naval Forces of the United States committing a criminal offence resulting in the death of a British national, the American offender will be subject to American jurisdiction or British?

Mr. Morrison: In the case of a capital offence, he will be subject to the American authorities. They will deal with him. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General tells me that we are not quite clear—this is, of course,. American military law—why that particular word occurs in the Article I have quoted. We rather assume it is because a capital offence is specifically dealt with in another Article, and probably the American authorities desired to make it clear that the Article to which I have referred did not apply to capital offences. It is undoubtedly the case, in the instance of a capital offence charged against a member of the American Armed Forces, that the American authorities would deal with the offence.

Mr. Silverman: Would there not be this difference—that the American soldier in the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers would be triable only by a military court, whereas a British soldier committed on a like offence would be subjected to civil and not military courts?

Mr. Morrison: I think that is so, and it really must be so, because there is none other than an American military court in this country to try the case.

Mr. Garro Jones: The House will have observed that this Bill has been introduced by the Home Secretary, not by the Attorney-General, and from that I think it would be quite fair to deduce that it has been inspired at least as much by what I will not term political considerations, but considerations


of the relationship between our two countries, as on purely legal grounds. I think every hon. Member will wish, in discussing this Bill, to exclude all legal pedantry. At the same time I think it is rather misleading to suggest that this Bill follows the analogy of what was done in France in the last war. There the British troops were engaged on active combatant service in zones which, with certain exceptions, were forbidden to civilian access, and although there was a certain number of British troops mingling with the French population, the degree of contact with the French civil population, as many hon. Members will recollect, was nothing like the degree of contact which the American Forces must inevitably have with the British population here. When this Bill becomes law it may well give rise to some difficulties, but these difficulties will be all the less if we understand quite clearly what we are doing to-day.
It is said that what will be administered is the American criminal law, and some code appears to have been published, of which the House is not properly informed. I am not proposing to oppose this Bill, but I wish to clear up some important points. When we consider American criminal law, we are in some difficulty. We want to know whether we are dealing with the American Federal criminal law or with the State criminal law, and which is the foundation of this military code. It will certainly be necessary to apprise the public as to what code is to cover this law. In every State of America they have a different criminal law, with certain Federal criminal laws superimposed over all. In some States, I believe, capital punishment has been abolished, and in others its mode of execution is altogether different: in some it is by hanging, in others by electrocution, and in at least one the lethal chamber is the method. We do not want to get morbid about the consideration of this Bill, but it is important that we should know the code which is to be administered. It is true that, despite all these differences, the American criminal law and our own come from a common source the English common law and statute law as they were at the time when the American Colonies were founded. But the law of a living community constantly changes, by amendment, repeal and decay and by the divergent case law

of the country concerned. Perhaps that is not altogether a good thing, because if the law were still as it was at the time of the common foundation of our two criminal laws it would be possible to sentence culprits to the ducking-stool. It is only about 120 years since that penalty was abolished from our own criminal law; and, not so very much farther back, it was possible to sentence a culprit to lose his ears—a sentence which was passed and executed upon a Member of this House.
But we are not considering the common source of the two laws, but the extent to which they have developed on parallel lines during the last 160 years. I do not intend to set myself up as an expert on American criminal law, but I have consulted colleagues of mine in the profession on that subject, and happily there is very little reason to anticipate any awkward disparity that need hamper the passage of this Bill or impede its operation. But it is important that we should recognise the divergencies which exist. There are one or two very important ones. On the law of treason—which, of course, we do not anticipate will arise, but for which we must make provision—the American crime is a very much narrower one than the British. I believe it is entirely restricted to levying war against the State or adhering to its enemies. The fact that the United States law itself is not quite clear on this question may be deduced by those who have read what difficulties it has landed itself in in the last few days oh the trial of eight German saboteurs who have landed in the United States. If I have read the reports of the proceedings aright, the President set up an ad hoc military commission to try them, and his decision so to do was challenged in the civil courts, in order to establish the jurisdiction of that tribunal. I think that on important questions of that kind, in the interests of the United States Army no less than in the interests of the British Army, we should be quite clear that we are not landing ourselves in any difficulties of procedure.
There are other difficulties which are more likely to be disclosed as the Bill comes to be administered. Although, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said, they will be to some extent covered by what might be called the residuary provision of the military code—that is to say, "conduct prejudicial to military discipline" and so on—it would


be interesting to know to what extent offences which do not come under that residuary provision are defined in the code. I want to ask the learned Attorney-General whether it will be possible for members of the legal profession, at least, or for members of the public who are interested, to have convenient access to this military code at an early date. I feel certain it would be wrong to convey the impression that only minor offences will be dealt with under that residuary provision. It is quite likely that under that very vague provision for "conduct prejudicial to military discipline" several quite serious offences may fall.
I observed in "The Times" yesterday that a learned Judge, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, drew attention to some of his anxieties. Most of his doubts, I think, might have been dispelled by a fuller study of what was said by the Lord Chancellor in another place. But the learned Judge was rightly concerned to satisfy himself that the class of offences known to lawyers as offences against the person—which, of course, include offences against women and children—will be as stringently dealt with in the American courts as they would be in the civil courts of this country. I am glad to be able to say that, as far as my investigations go, there need be no anxiety on that score. The standard of proof will be the same, the rules of evidence will be similar and the punishments in many cases are even more severe in the American code than in the British code, the American code having been founded on several co-ordinated State codes, in one of which at least the crime of rape is punishable by death. Although we regard rape as a serious crime, punishable by extreme sentences of imprisonment, it certainly is not liable to a capital penalty. I think that the overwhelming majority of cases which will fall to be administered under this Bill will come within the category of offences liable to be tried by process of summary jurisdiction. Fortunately, that is precisely the class of offences in relation to which the American criminal code and our own have most in common. I feel that as to 99 out of 100 cases no difficulties of that kind will arise, but, having said this, I hope that the American and the British authorities will make provision for settling any differences that arise. I notice in

page 5 of the Bill, paragraph 8 of the Schedule, that the whole arrangement
is based upon the further assumption that satisfactory machinery will be devised between the competent American and British authorities for such mutual assistance as may be required in making investigations and collecting evidence in respect of offences which members of the United States Forces are alleged to have committed.
With great respect, I do not think that that machinery, with that limited purpose, will be sufficient to ensure the satisfactory administration of the Act. Many different kinds of questions will arise. In reading the Lord Chancellor's speech, I saw that he promised, or at any rate anticipated, that some supplementary machinery might be necessary, and I hope that before the House passes this Bill it will be informed precisely what the nature of that supplementary machinery is to be. I would respectfully suggest that a tribunal of referees, presided over by the Lord Chancellor and consisting of an American lawyer and an American soldier, and perhaps a similar representation on the British side, would be a satisfactory body. The Lord Chancellor should preside over such a body, because although we are doing this to meet the desire of the United States authorities, it is the protection of our own nationals which is being confided to their criminal jurisdiction, and therefore it is important that we should maintain a close surveillance over the method of operation. At such a tribunal, apart from questions of law, as the learned Attorney-General will know, perhaps one of the most difficult questions will be the difference in the law as regards states of the mind, which in United States criminal law is very different from that in this country, and that will be one of the questions which will give rise to difficulties. On the protection of witnesses in contempt of court, if that should arise—it may never arise, and we hope that it will not—it will be an extremely awkward question if there is no body of authoritative people able to decide it and come to a wise decision. On the right of appeal, if any, to the American Supreme Court, is the American Appeal Court to be the final court? I anticipate that it will be and that there will be no appeal to an American Civil Appeal Court.
There is the question of the privilege of witnesses and of the Press. That is not


dealt with in this Bill. Are we sure that witnesses will be fully protected by the law of privilege as applied to witnesses in the British courts, and similarly to reports of these, cases in the Press? These military courts will not be British courts of law, and as the law stands, if I understand it aright, there would be no protection to a British newspaper for printing a report of these proceedings; it would be liable to an action. I see that it was stated in another place that it would have the same protection as is accorded in respect to honest reports of public meetings, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will not contend that that will be a sufficient privilege for witnesses in a court of law. There is one further point about which I would like to ask. Is any initiative in the laying of charges left with the American authorities, or is the whole process of initiating action to arise from the British civilian population through the channels of the British police?
I have left one point to the last, which I think is a very important one, on which I wish my right hon. and learned Friend particularly to give me an answer. What is the position of British lawyers before these American courts? Is there to be any right of audience by an English solicitor or an English counsel, and, if not, would it not be desirable that, at any rate, it should be possible for right of audience to be given in cases of certain classes of offences, and offences against the person in particular? Very delicate and difficult matters are concerned, and I think it would be a pity, on what consideration I have been able to give to this matter, if legal advisers of persons who have been wronged were to be excluded from the tribunals which are to try the wrongdoer. There may be some good reason why that cannot be given, but I hope that it will be fully considered.
I put forward these points, not as criticisms, but rather as points complementary to the proposals before the House. The British people, if they are properly informed, will not be apprehensive about this Bill. They are confident that the cases which will arise under it, if carried through their usual channel of complaint, namely, the British police, to the American courts will be adjudicated upon a code as enlightened as our own. As for the British Judges, I entirely agree with what has been said that many of

them will be only too glad to be relieved of the rather embarrassing task—and this applies particularly to magistrates—of trying members of an Allied Force who are in this country as our friends and helpers, but I hope that our American Allies will not under-estimate the importance of this Bill and will recognise in it not only an earnest of our comradeship, but a revelation of common sense between the two countries.

Mr. Goldie: When the Leader of the House on Thursday of last week informed us that it would be necessary to pass through all its stages in one day a Bill which involved considerable constitutional changes, I felt great anxiety about what I should discover when the copy of the Bill came from the Vote Office. That anxiety was to a very great extent, if not almost entirely, dispelled when I saw that the Bill which was to be presented to this House bore the imprimatur of the Lord Chancellor and is recommended by the Leader of this House, a distinguished lawyer, the regret at whose departure from the Temple is only tempered by the extreme affection that he left behind. But I feel that, dealing as we are with a great constitutional change, which is wholly without precedent, we are, particularly in these times of emergency, the High Court of Parliament, and in particular, in this House we are the protectors of the liberty of the subject. In these circumstances we should be failing in our duty, and indeed in our duty to our comrades in the American House of Representatives, if we did not devote some little care to the examination of a Bill which carries out an agreement by which we are absolutely and honourably bound. I have no doubt whatever that this House will give approval to the Agreement come to between His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Excellency the American Ambassador, and, indeed, it is unthinkable that we should not honour such an Agreement, but it undoubtedly involves a great constitutional change, and, further than that, it is, in my experience, unique.
In all the years I have been here I can never remember a Government coming to the House of Commons with an actually concluded Agreement. I hesitate to recall the Hoare-Laval Agreement of unhappy memories, because that never reached the stage at which legisla-


tion came before the House. The only Bill which, in my recollection, is now an Act and is in any way analogous to it, is the Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931. But that Statute was a totally different matter altogether, because what happened in that case was that the Crown delegated its particular powers of dealing with British subjects to courts in our great Dominions. But here we are undoubtedly making a great constitutional change and one to which, I suggest, we should devote a few minutes to examining. In this case there is no doubt at all that from the point of view of everybody it is desirable that American courts should have jurisdiction. But I ask myself whether or not we are perhaps proceeding in a wise way. I cannot recollect any Bill in which an Agreement which is come to is set out as the Schedule to the Bill. I at once referred to the opening paragraphs of the Preamble of the Bill, and I found reference to the Allied Forces Act, 1940, and the Order in Council made thereunder. If that is so, it does seem to me that we might well have proceeded—and I speak with great respect in the presence of the Attorney-General—in bringing about what we desire under the Allied Forces Act, 1940. The Preamble of that Act and the Order in Council which is based upon it
make provision with respect to the discipline and internal administration of certain allied and associated Forces, and for the application in relation to those forces of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, and other Acts.
Later we passed the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Act, 1941, the Preamble of which deals with the making of temporary provisions to enable Allied and associated Powers to establish and maintain in the United Kingdom maritime courts for the trial and punishment of certain maritime offences. In both those Acts there are definite Sections preserving the rights of the British courts. In the earlier Act hon. Members will find that it states in Section 2:
(1) Nothing in the foregoing section shall affect the jurisdiction of any civil court of the United Kingdom or of any colony or territory to which that section is extended, to try a member of any of the naval, military or air forces mentioned in that section for any act or omission constituting an offence against the law of the United Kingdom, or of that colony or territory, as the case may be.
Similarly, under the Maritime Court Act, which the hon Gentleman the Member for

Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and I criticised from rather different angles, there is in Section 3 the definite proviso:
Nothing in this Act shall deprive any British court of jurisdiction in respect of any Act or omission constituting an offence against the law of any part of His Majesty's Dominions.
When you look at the Order in Council made under the Allied Forces Act you find there that the exact provisions of this Act are applied by the Order in Council to a certain number of Allied Forces. I, for one, feel we might well have proceeded under the 1940 Act and preserved to ourselves some right in these cases for British courts. That being so, I do not intend in the slightest degree to criticise the Agreement which has been come to; indeed, it would be almost impertinent to do so, and, therefore, any remarks I make will be made in order to try and elucidate points which are not clear. If you turn to the Schedule, you will see there is reference continuously to the Service Courts, as, for instance, in line 13 of page 5 and line 13 of page 4. That is, in fact, a phrase which is taken from the Order in Council under the Allied Forces Act, 1940. But I find that when I look at the Bill itself there is no particular definition of any Service Court, and I ask myself whether these proceedings are to be confined solely to courts-martial held under the aegis of the American Forces, or is power to be given—as was undoubtedly given under the Maritime Courts Act—to create lesser courts and courts other than courts-martial to try lesser offences? It is a point which I think should be made clear because it is extraordinarily difficult to tell under the Bill what court is contemplated.
There is another point to which I should like to draw attention. Reciprocity is dealt with. Is it proposed that there should be an extension of this Measure to the Dominions? I think some question may well arise of what may happen in the Dominions, Another point is that in the Act of 1940, and certainly in Section 19 of the Act of 1941—the Maritime Courts Act—there is direct reference to Northern Ireland. In this particular Bill it is a rather extraordinary and rather unusual feature that one sees there is no Clause extending the Act either to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. Yet we find in Subsection (2) of Clause 1, in line 15, references made to the Minister for Home


Affairs in Northern Ireland. It is just as well we should understand why the Measure apparently does not extend to Northern Ireland while there is some reference to the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. The next Subsection which is obvious and a very proper one and which it would not be wise for a moment to criticise at all, says:
Nothing in this Act shall render any person subject to any liability whether civil or criminal in respect of anything done by him to any member of the said forces in good faith and without knowledge that he was a member of those forces.
That is essential and most desirable to prevent actions for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or anything not done in good faith. But when I read the Sub-section I put upon it such a ludicrous interpretation that I felt there must be something wrong somewhere. I said to myself:
…any person subject to any liability whether civil or criminal in respect of anything done by him to any member of the said forces in good faith and without knowledge that he was a member of those forces.
It might well be that when we are visiting our constituencies we might collide, while cycling, with a member of the American Forces. Apparently he would have no remedy against us at all. I know that is not what is meant, but the fact that it is possible that a man with some little legal knowledge might place that interpretation upon it in a moment of mental aberration shows that it might be differently worded. It would just clear up what is, in fact, an obvious point.
I have detained the House far too long, but this is a great constitutional change, and we cannot get away from it. We are doing something which, in words which have already been used, constitutes a most unusual proposal, and one which would never be justified or tolerated except under conditions of war and under conditions of the closest feeling of comradeship, and of a common legal tradition, which exist between the United States and ourselves. In my view this Bill carries us far, and I myself apply one test only in these matters. Does exceptional legislation of this character assist us in our war effort? In our opinion it does, and it is perfectly clear that it does because our Allies the United States of America are so desirous of having the facilities it gives. The only

other point is, if such legislation is necessary in exceptional circumstances, does that in any way prejudice the right of the individual citizen, be he a British subject, an ally, or even a friendly alien? In this particular case we are told by the United States of America that they desire this particular procedure, which in their view will help them in dealing with the rights and liabilities of their own citizens who are helping us in the Forces. If they have asked for it, I for one am content with this Bill. Except for such little criticism as has been made of the Bill, which may perhaps be made better in some of these smaller items, I for one commend it to the acceptance of the House.

Mr. Clement Davies: My hon. and learned Friend, towards the end of his speech, has very rightly laid emphasis on the great constitutional change that we are asked to make. He did not content himself with using his own words, but referred to the words in the letter of the Foreign Secretary; yet, having attracted the attention of the House to that in an earlier part of his speech, he said it would almost be an impertinence on his part to criticise the action of the Executive. That just shows the pass to which this House is rapidly reducing itself, that Members should apologise for daring to criticise a constitutional act proposed by the Executive. Does the hon. and learned Member, who belongs to what is to my mind the highest of all professions, really think that it is an impertinence on the part of a member of the Bar to criticise an Act which is going to do away with the jurisdiction exercised from time immemorial by the courts of this country?

Mr. Goldie: I do not think I used the words "impertinence to criticise the Act." What I think I said was that it would be "impertinent to criticise the Agreement"; there is a slight distinction.

Mr. Davies: It amounts to exactly the same thing. This Legislature is ancient, and we are proud of it; we are proud of the way in which we exercise our democratic rights, but far older than the Legislature is our method of administering justice, and we are even prouder of that The Judges on our benches, whatever the Legislature or the Executive may have thought, have been the bulwark of our democracy. They have stood against


kings in the past, they have stood against the Executive, and upon our benches and their administration of justice our very liberties are founded.
With some of the words which were uttered by the Home Secretary every one of us will agree; we welcome the American Forces here, and we are anxious to assist them and to express our gratitude in every way we can, but while agreeing with that, it does not follow that we are to hand over, not even to the American civil courts but to the American military courts, the civil jurisdiction usually exercised by our Judges. It is not only the jurisdiction exercised by the magistrate, whether in petty sessions or in quarter sessions, but that jurisdiction that was so treasured that we have long decided that it was not a matter for the magistrates or quarter sessions to deal with, but was one which could only be dealt with by our specially qualified and highly paid High Court Judges. We are not even to hand over that jurisdiction to similar Judges, but to some military court about which we know nothing.
I therefore make three protests, and may I make the smallest one first? I protest at the way in which this matter, one which the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, as well as the two hon. Members whose speeches we have just heard, regard as a highly constitutional matter, is brought before the House, to be rushed through all its stages in one sitting. We have not even been given a copy of our own Bill, but we are given a copy of a Bill in another place, with a white slip attached to it. We are not even told who is introducing this Bill. We are only told who was introducing it in another place. I agree that that is done for the convenience of the House, and we are grateful for that, but it does show the way in which the Legislature to-day is being treated by the Executive. It is no good pointing to the two letters, the long letter from the Foreign Secretary to His Excellency the American Ambassador, and the latter's reply on the same day—they are both dated 27th July; these matters must have been under discussion for a very long time. We now know that it is proposed, although it is not stated in the Bill, that this is to be ante-dated even to 7th December, 1941, and that offences which have taken place since that date are now to be dealt with not by our courts but by this military court. Why is the House

treated in this way? Why is the Bill rushed through almost on the last day of the Session, when we are supposed to be adjourning for a whole month? Why could not the House have been given a longer period in which to discuss it? That is my first protest.
My second protest is that it is brought before the House as a fait accompli, and I think that that was what was really in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend, that if this matter had been brought up in the first instance before this House without an Agreement having been made, his criticism to-day would have been a stronger one. But he says, "Who am I now to make a protest about this matter? It has been agreed between our two Governments, and I can only look at it as an accomplished fact and draw the attention of the Government to a few matters." I protest against that. If they had this in mind, as they must have had it in mind for a very long time, why did they not bring it before the House and ask the opinion of the House before they made the Agreement, long before it was decided that we should do away with this jurisdiction?
My third protest is against the thing itself. Power has already been given by the Legislature to enable the Forces that have come to this country, who are our welcome guests and who have come here to assist us, to deal with their own affairs, and if further power were necessary, this House would readily give it. If any trouble arises with regard to discipline, if any dispute arises between two soldiers belonging to an Allied nation, that of course is a matter in regard to which we will say, "You can deal with it yourselves, we do not want to exercise any jurisdiction, we will take away from our, own courts the right to deal with them." But it goes further; it does not even deal only with military offences, but with offences against civilians in this country.

Earl Winterton: It is extra-territorial rights.

Mr. Davies: Most certainly. The noble Lord can put it the other way if he likes. We are reducing ourselves to the position in which certain countries were put by us under the Capitulation Treaties.

Mr. Silverman: Surely we are not even in such a good position, because under


the worst of those Treaties the courts which exercised jurisdiction at least were civil courts?

Mr. Davies: What we are doing is to deprive ourselves of the ancient jurisdiction of which we are so proud, and to hand it over to courts functioning, not in a foreign country, but in our own country. The precedent put forward is that this was done by France. But it was done only when the German invader had occupied a large part of her territory, when the French courts of civil jurisdiction were unable to function, and when there was only the French military jurisdiction operating. Very rightly, they said, "You deal with your own cases, and we will deal with ours." That was an entirely different situation from that which exists in this country. I also wish to show that the Bill in the form in which it has been introduced is of a negative character. It states:
(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, no criminal proceedings shall be prosecuted in the United Kingdom before any court of the United Kingdom against a member of the military or naval forces of the United States of America.
That is all. There is nothing there to say specifically that jurisdiction shall be exercised over these people by anyone else. It merely deprives our courts of jurisdiction. Having said that there is a precedent in France, the only other point emphasised by the Home Secretary was that the penalties these people would administer would be as severe as those administered in our courts. What the penalty may be is a small matter. What is important is, What is the jurisdiction, how it is exercised and under what rules it is exercised. The penalty may be more severe if a case is proved, but how is a case to be proved? A case will be taken in some court about which we are entirely ignorant. I wonder whether hon. Members realise the position. An American soldier or sailor commits an offence—I am not saying he is alleged to have committed an offence—and he is caught in flagrante delicto by a British policeman. The British policeman has power of arrest, but, having made an arrest, he and the American soldier or sailor know that an arrested man has to be handed over to a jurisdiction about which the policeman knows nothing. The policeman in ordinary times is part of the

whole system of law, from the Lord Chancellor downwards. Policemen have very great difficulties in effecting arrests, and very often they run great risks. Will they not be running even greater risks, when the persons whom they may try to arrest can say, "Although you can arrest me, your court has no jurisdiction whatsoever over me"? Think of the trouble which will arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) rightly pointed out that, although the two laws originated in the same way, there have since been great divergencies. Possibly the cases which will have to be dealt with will be mostly those known as sex offences. We have built up in this country a very wonderful code of law to deal with sex offences. There are offences which are difficult to prove, and we have decided that the consent of the girl is no defence. I wonder what the law of America is with regard to that. We have been gradually changing the law in this country during the last 25 or 30 years, and we have raised the age during these years at which consent can be used as a defence. Which law will be applied if an offence is committed by an American soldier or sailor in this country? I gather it will be the American law—the American military law and not our British law. Then there is the case of a joint offence committed, perhaps, by a British soldier and an American soldier, and involving the death of a British citizen. How is the jurisdiction to be exercised there? Is the British soldier to be tried by a British court and the American soldier by an American court? Quite obviously these questions have not been fully considered. I am mentioning them to show how this matter has been rushed upon us; it was held up until the last days of July, when the Foreign Secretary wrote a letter and received a reply on the same day; it was then brought before another place, and now this Bill is brought before us to pass through all its stages in one day. I have made my protest as earnestly and as strongly as I can in regard to these matters.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: There are a few things which are troubling me about this astonishing and unique Bill, but anything I say is in no sense to be construed as being contrary to the people of the United States. I realise that if it


had not been for the United States, we should have found ourselves in very grave difficulties indeed; we all owe them an immense debt. There are one or two questions which spring to my mind, not a legal mind, but a mind with some knowledge of naval law and naval discipline, and with some knowledge of military law and military discipline. I do hope that the questions I put forward will not be misunderstood. My first question is why a similar procedure was not followed by other Allies who have Armed Forces in this country. Why, if it were not necessary for this law to be passed during the last war when we had immense numbers of American troops in this country, is it necessary in this war?
I have read through the correspondence in the Schedule, and I should like to ask that the previous transactions referred to in the opening lines of the Foreign Secretary's letter to the American Ambassador should be placed in our possession. Our letter, which I have read with great care, reads in the nature of a mild, justifiable and polite protest, with evident fears for possible difficulties that may arise. The 10-line reply of the American Ambassador reads like the last remarks of a polite ultimatum which has already been delivered. I put it in the politest possible words that the House of Commons exists for people to say what they think, and so long as it is not what I should call rude and unfair, one has every right to put forward such a view, but that is how it strikes me in reading it.
There is another point that distresses me. It is common knowledge—I have picked up a great deal of such information myself in reading the Press for a great many years past—that some legal processes in the United States last for many years before decisions are reached, and that is looked upon by the best opinion there as being in the nature of a scandal. In fact, the best opinion in America is filled with admiration at the high standard of our legal procedure, of the certainty of quick decisions which we always reach and the impossibility of unnecessary and unscrupulous juridical delays. I want to know what are the rights of appeal in American military law which might enable a man, after sentence is passed, to set in train all sorts of delays which may run into months, perhaps even years. Unless there is some sort of protection in that respect, people in this

country might become very angry if serious offences were committed against property or person which resulted in such delay as I speak of. I put those few points as they strike me, and I ask the Government to clear up the doubts that I have in my mind. I would not for a moment suggest that the Bill should be delayed or that I would vote against it, and, although I very much agree with what has been said about the way in which it has been rushed, we have a duty to perform, and that is to promote the interests of the United States and ourselves in the prosecution of the war. I just ask for information.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I completely agree with the attitude taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). The Bill is to be rushed through the House, but a great deal of negotiation must have taken place before the letters contained in the Schedule were written. We are removing these matters from our jurisdiction, and we are doing it very sharply, and I think it is only right that we should dwell upon it for a little time. The Home Secretary gave as the reason for the introduction of the Bill that the American Government would be happier if American troops were tried by the procedure to which they were accustomed, and he gave us to understand that that would be quite a natural desire on the part of foreigners—in this case Allies—who come to this country. He also said we should be met with the difficulty of providing defence for these men. But they would be in no other position than that of the ordinary person who normally lies outside our jurisdiction. I do not think that is any reason at all. If the accused person were in this country in an ordinary way he would be always faced with that difficulty. As to defence, surely the American Government could very easily make arrangements for American counsel to be available. The right hon. Gentleman's reasons seem to me quite beside the point. He referred to the Allied Forces Bill as a precedent. That Bill simply deals with offences against regulations laid down by Allied Governments in this country in regard to those serving under them. It does not visualise acts against our own people, and I do not think it can be in any way looked upon as a guide. Some newspapers have urged that there is, as it were, nothing in this Bill, that the language of the two


countries is similar and that their law is derived from a common stock. There are no reasons why the Bill should be passed. They are arguments against it. If our language is similar and our law comes from a common stock, what is the need then for a Bill of this kind?
It has been asserted that the magistrates and judges will be well content, that they will have less work to do and that they will be relieved of delicate matters which might come in front of them, and therefore they will be quite happy to allow an American military court to exercise jurisdiction. I do not think it is a question whether the magistrates and judges will be well content. What we have to consider is whether British citizens will be well content. Imagine that I have a wife or a daughter who has been murdered by an American soldier. Should I be well content to feel that he was not tried by a court of my own country? I do not think I should. We have already dwelt on the point of view that the punishment may be different from our own, and also that the American attitude towards crime in certain cases may also be different from our own. I would like to say something about the type of court which is to be set up. We understand that it will be a military court. I do not think that is satisfactory. We are accustomed to have a criminal tried by a jury in serious cases. There will be no jury in a military court. The court will consist of American citizens acting as soldiers for the time being, but there will be no trial by jury which we have regarded as so essential in this country over so long a period.
There is another point in regard to power to enforce United States citizens who may be here as soldiers to act as witnesses in cases of crime committed in their presence or in cases where it may be necessary for them to be witnesses. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs simply says that he trusts that we may count upon the assistance of the American authorities in connection with prosecutions before British courts of persons who are not members of the United States Forces where the evidence of any members is required or the assistance of American authorities in the investigation of cases may be needed. The Foreign Secretary merely trusts that the American authorities will allow these people to

be brought as witnesses. That is not sufficient and there should be a better understanding than that. There should be a Clause in the Bill stating that the reciprocity which is hinted at in the Schedule should be arranged by the American Government and that this Bill should not be effective until the American Government has made the same thing effective as regards British troops in America. The American Ambassador made a very short reply in his letter to the Foreign Secretary. He sets out clearly in the first paragraph of his letter what the United States Government desire, but he dismisses in two or three lines the other implications of the Foreign Secretary's letter. He says nothing there about reciprocity except in general terms. He says:
I now have the honour to inform you that my Government agree to the several understandings which were raised in your Note.
The American Ambassador should have set out specifically the desire of our country to have reciprocity as he has set out the desire of the American Government to have this jurisdiction within this country. He has not done so and speaks of "several understandings." "Understanding" may be a word which diplomatic circles understand, but to the ordinary man it is hardly sufficient. What the American Ambassador understands may not be what was in the mind of the Foreign Secretary. I do not suggest that that is intentional, but ambiguity might arise. He should have set out the paragraph about reciprocity in full.
Reference has been made to the legislation which affected our troops in France in the last war. It has been given out as a sort of precedent, although it is not a precedent at all. One hon. Member clearly pointed out that the conditions were very different, and I would like to emphasise that. From the start of the last war we sent out an enormous number of troops to France and they increased continuously until they soon reached 1,000,000. The French law did not run where the Germans were in occupation and round the fringe of the occupation there was complete confusion. The line was advancing and retreating and no one knew where they were. Large numbers of French citizens disappeared far behind the British line and it was natural that criminal jurisdiction under these conditions should be granted to the British


authorities in France. I would point out, too, that the French law does not come from the common stock about which we have heard to-day. Although I do not suppose I shall ever know, I would like to ask what the American Government had in mind in seeking these powers. British justice is notorious throughout the world as the best form of justice. It is not perfect, but no one could administer justice in a perfect way. Nevertheless, foreign countries have always recognised that our administration of justice is of the highest order. In Admiralty disputes foreign countries have constantly brought their cases to the British Admiralty Court because they knew that they were likely to get a better decision there than in the courts of their own countries.
As the common origin of our law and language is stressed, it would have been a great exhibition of mutual trust if the American Government had found it unnecessary to ask the British Parliament for this Bill. I do not want any remarks that I have made to be misconstrued by the House or in any place that they may reach. In this common struggle we shall, if we place our misunderstandings and difficulties upon the table and thrash them out, develop a greater faith and trust in one another. I have deplored before, and I take this opportunity of doing so again, the somewhat too tactful attitude that this country has taken towards the American people. We always undertake our negotiations with extreme delicacy. I believe that that might defeat its own object and that it will arouse the very suspicions we hope to avoid. Hence I hope that what I have said will not hinder our good relations because I believe that if we boldly face our misunderstandings and difficulties and discuss them quite frankly and openly as friends and Allies, we shall all be in better heart and better fettle to march forward together to the common goal of final victory.

Major Lyons: I want to express my complete agreement with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). Not one of us who opposes this Bill wishes to minimise in any way our unbounded appreciation of our American friends and Allies nor the warmth of our welcome, but we do not see any reason why we should agree to this striking innovation without its being shown that any

benefit accrues thereby. This is a great capitulation in the matter of a great constitutional asset, the right to be tried in a British court, which time and time again has been valued by foreigners here. Indeed, it is a matter of constitutional pride with us that when a man is tried on a criminal charge in this country, no matter how high or how humble he is, or what his rank or nationality, he gets tile same invariable standard of British justice. I think we can say with a great deal of pride that that is a matter of envy throughout the world. I do not want to repeat what my hon. and learned Friend said. He made a three-point objection, and I think every one of his objections was well founded. This Bill will give another jurisdiction here. I know of no argument which has been adduced to-day to justify this Measure. I know of no reason which has been put forward to justify a great constitutional innovation of this nature being rushed through this House. I see no reason why the situation should call for the novelty of what is almost a one-Clause negative Bill based upon certain discussions and conversations which we have not heard and of which we have no cognisance, and I say with profound respect for the two statesmen who had these discussions that it was a most improper way to treat this House in a matter of this nature.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) dealt with the argument put forward that because there is so much common stock in the two countries and in the derivation of the two systems of law it does not matter very much. That argument is a sham, if I may say so. The more community of interest there is, the less justification there is for a Measure of this nature, and I hope this House will show its disapproval of the manner in which it has been presented, and will say clearly that while it is always unfortunate to have to criticise something which is based upon a measure of agreement, it is not for us to sit silent. After discussions have taken place about which the two gentlemen who held the discussions think it best to tell the House nothing, this Bill is brought forward, and I resent its being presented to us as a more or less accomplished Measure. It is stated in the Bill that these discussions and the Agreement based upon them must be subject to Parliamentary sanction, or words to that effect, but that is only said


in passing, as it were. Of course, Parliamentary sanction is necessary, and it is here that we should insist on the maintenence of our safeguards, but I hope that Parliamentary sanction will never be given to a Measure of this kind without a far better case being made out for it than has been given to-day; and to wait until we are just about to separate for a substantial Recess—so it is said—before bringing in a Bill of this sort, based upon discussions which have been going on for months, and seeking to make this innovation retrospective for months, is to do something which I personally resent, and I hope that other Members will take the same stand in showing what they think of the Bill and the procedure behind it.

Mr. Hutchinson: We are all agreed that this Bill marks a very exceptional step in our constitutional procedure. I do not know that we should hesitate to take it for that reason alone, but, I am bound to say that I should have felt more satisfied if the correspondence which is scheduled to this Bill had begun with a letter from a representative of the United States Government setting out the reasons why his Government are desirous that their Forces should be the subject of this exceptional constitutional Measure. I am bound to say, too, that I agree with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that it would have been more satisfactory, and I say no more than that, from the standpoint of this House, if we had been given a rather longer opportunity of considering this Bill than has been afforded to us. We are all prepared, and gladly so, to take this exceptional step if our Allies desire it, and what we should concern ourselves with to-day is to ensure that nothing is done in this House which will adversely affect the individual rights or interests of any British subject. The intention of the Bill is, of course, not to affect the individual rights or interests of British subjects in any way, although I find it difficult to appreciate what the effect of Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 is intended to be. That Sub-section seems to raise an inference that there may be something in this Bill which would make a person subject to a liability, civil or criminal, in respect of something that he might do knowingly towards a member of the

Armed Forces of the United States. As I understand the rest of the Bill, there is nothing in it—I hope I am understanding it correctly—which imposes any liability upon any person at all. The only part of the Bill which makes me a little doubtful whether that is the intention is this Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. Perhaps when my right hon. and learned Friend comes to reply, he will give us some assurance that there is nothing in the Bill which will affect the individual rights of any British subject in matters of this nature.
There are two matters in which the interests of British subjects seem likely to be affected. The first is in cases where a joint offence is committed by a British subject and by a member of the Armed Forces of the United States. I feel that in those cases we do require some safeguard that the interests of British subjects will not be prejudiced by the fact that one of the offenders is being tried in an American military court in this country and the other offender is, or may be, tried by a British civilian court. It seems to me on the face of it to be unsatisfactory that two trials should take place in respect of what would clearly be a single offence. I hope we may have some assurance that administrative machinery is contemplated which will ensure that the rights and interests of British subjects are not prejudiced in a case of that nature. The other matter in which it appears to me that we should receive some assurance is the class of case to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery referred, that is the case of an offence against a girl which by our law may be unlawful but which by the law of the United States may not be unlawful, by reason of differences in the age of consent under the respective legal codes of the two countries or matters of that sort. The position will then arise that something has been done by a member of the United States Armed Forces which is an offence under British law but not under United States law. Proceedings must in that case be taken before the United States military tribunal, based upon a Section in the United States military code containing provisions of a general nature.
It appears entirely unsatisfactory that the matter should be left in that way. I can see that it would be undesirable that a member of the United States Military


Forces should be charged with an offence of such a kind under a general Section providing that it is an offence to do what is unlawful by the law of the country in which that member of the Armed Forces happens to be, and I hope we shall have some assurance that cases of that nature have been fully considered and that the rights of British subjects will not be jeopardised by any discrepancies between British and American law in that respect. The House will readily pass the Bill, drastic though its departure is from our constitutional practice. But we shall do it, not because we desire to establish a precedent for a future departure of the same sort, but because we desire to pay a special compliment to our Allies from the United States of America.

Mr. Silverman: If one thing is clear from the Debate so far it is that a great many Members, including some who are against the Measure altogether and some who are in favour of it in principle, would like an opportunity of closer examination of its provisions, and of amendment, in order to safeguard doubts which have arisen, and which I think they have made reasonable in their speeches. I would like to make an appeal to the Government and to the Leader of the House not to persist in the proposal to take this Measure through all its stages to-day.
Reference has been made to the Allied Forces Act, 1940, and to the Emergency Courts Act of the following year. I think that the Leader of the House was not in the country at the time of the passing of either of those Acts. If he takes the trouble to inform himself about them, I think he will find that on both occasions there was a Committee stage, in the second case, a somewhat protracted one, which resulted in the Government accepting a number of Amendments and, therefore, in what may be taken to be the universal opinion of this House that the Bills were improved by that examination. I cannot see what the Government would lose if they gave the House the same opportunity and the same consideration on this occasion as they gave it on those other occasions. I feel sure that the Government can entertain no doubt that the House would approach the question in the proper spirit, with a desire not to be obstructive but to be helpful. I cannot think that anyone really expects that any

harm can possibly be done. There is no urgency about it. [Interruption.] There can be no urgency about it. I understand that no one claims that there is.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is very urgent.

Mr. Silverman: How can it be? The Bill is retrospective. What can the urgency be? It is not as though we were closing the Session at the end of the week so that if we did not pass the Bill it would have to be reintroduced in another Session. We are parting for a certain time, and when we come back the present Session will be resumed. If the Government rush the thing through to-day, they will give more power to the view which has been expressed that their real reason is not that there is any urgency but that they do not desire the agreement which has been dictated to them by Washington to be altered by one jot or tittle and that not one "i" shall be otherwise dotted or a "t" otherwise crossed. I do not think the Government are treating the House fairly in this matter' in bringing the Bill forward in this way. They are placing all of us in the very greatest difficulty. Unlike some Members who have spoken, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that the Bill should be rejected.
When the Bill is brought forward in this way we are all conscious that what we say about it becomes the subject of comment in America and of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Is it true that the Government have introduced the Bill in this way in order to prevent Members of the House from saying what they think about it? In the other cases that have been mentioned there was the fullest consultation beforehand. The discussions were protracted. Every kind of view was taken into account. The result was a better Measure than otherwise would have been the case. Here the House has not been consulted at all. We are placed in possession of a Bill with the intimation that it has already been agreed upon between our Foreign Office and the Department in charge of Foreign Affairs in America, and that all we can do is to give effect to it. For my part, I would not propose to give effect to it.
I agree with the reasons that have been given to us, and I do not propose to take up time by repeating them, but I would


like to make one additional point that has not been made or not been clearly made so far in the Debate. To my mind, the most serious aspect of this proposal is that it places the American soldier in this country in a position in which he would not be placed at home and in which the British soldier is not placed. Our system of Government and our way of life, for which millions of people are prepared to die and which perhaps on that account alone might be worthy of some consideration, could not continue except on the basis that the actions of officials, the actions of soldiers, the actions of anybody, are ultimately challengeable in the civil courts and not in the military courts. That is just as true of the American way of life as it is of ours. But in this solitary case, exceptional in American law, exceptional in our own law, the American soldier in England is to be placed above the law, above civil control and answer-able to no criminal code. The American soldier is not to be answerable to the American criminal law; he is to be answerable only to American military courts.
I do not want to join in the morbid prognostications of my hon. and learned Friend about some imaginary cases which he believes and hopes will never eventuate in any court, but I would like to put another subject which I believe and hope will never eventuate in any court. There are sometimes occasions of civil strife, civil commotion, civil disturbance, when it happens sometimes that it is necessary to call in soldiers to the aid of the civil power. It is conceivable, to say no more than that, that such an occasion might arise when American soldiers were used either alone or in conjunction with our own. What is the safeguard of democracy in this country on such an occasion? It is this, that whatever the soldier may do on such an occasion, under our law he will ultimately have to answer for it before a civil court and under civil law. But for this our country might become a military dictatorship. The ultimate sanction is that whatever he may do in an emergency and however the civil arm may ultimately justify what he did, still it is for the civil arm and not for the military court, it is for the civil law and not for the military code, ultimately to determine whether what was done was rightly done or not. Under this Bill, in

such a situation as I have conceived, ultimately British soldiers would be answerable to British law before British courts, and so our constitution would be preserved, our democracy preserved. But under this Bill, to what would the American soldier be answerable? He would be answerable to an American court-martial for breaches of the American military law, and answerable for nothing else, and it would presumably be a complete defence before such a tribunal that the American soldier obeyed the order of the American officer immediately, or more than immediately, superior to him. All this may be—and I gather that some hon. Members think it is—unnecessarily imaginative. I hope it is, but who knows?
This House has always been prepared to part with constitutional safeguards where it has been persuaded that the necessity for this existed in the military situation. We have passed a series of Defence Regulations, we have passed certain Emergency Acts, the Treason Act and others; we have made infringements on what we have normally thought to be our constitutional outlook. We have never refused to give those powers to the Government where a case has been made out that it was necessary for the Government to have the powers, and here, too, the House would not hesitate for one moment to pass this Bill if a case for its necessity had been made out. But no case for its necessity has been made out, and no case for its necessity has been suggested. I agree with the hon. Member who said that the more one proves the similarity of the two bodies of law, the more one proves the lack of necessity for this Bill. There is not any necessity for it. So far from there being any urgency for it, there is no necessity for it. One hon. Member said that, of course, we have the best system of justice in the world. I suppose we have; it is better than others, at any rate. We are entitled, at any rate, to think so; but I concede that the Americans are entitled to think theirs is better, but that is no reason for seeking to apply it without necessity on foreign soil.
Usually it has been held that any country has a right to defend its own institutions against anyone within its own territory, with the reciprocal right for others to do the same with theirs. I say that we have gone a very long way. It is admitted that the Bill is unique, that it is entirely without precedent, and it is


admitted, I should think, that what is done is not unsubstantial; but no one has attempted to say why it is necessary that we should do it. I should have liked somebody to have seen the whole correpondence. Who made the request, and on what grounds? Is this the co-operation to which some people look forward after the war? Are all our affairs to be dictated from Washington, or are we to retain some rights of our own, some rights to the sovereignty of our own law in our own land, except in cases where the necessity for a departure from that principle has been proved? Again, I hope the Government will not insist on carrying this Measure through all its stages at this Sitting. It would be a grave dereliction of their duty as executive custodians of our institutions and our principles to ask the House to pass a Measure such as this hastily, in an ill-considered way, and without time for thought.

Mr. Craik Henderson: The Bill which we are considering is, as far as our law and constitution are concerned, of a completely revolutionary character. It is very far-reaching indeed. I do not say that because of that it is undesirable that the Bill should be passed, but I do say that, having such a far-reaching effect and being so novel and revolutionary, it means that we ought to see all the repercussions and effects of what we are doing. I submit that at the present time we are dealing with a Bill which deals with only a very small portion of the problem. I presume that the reason for these proposals is, if possible, to avoid friction. That is a very desirable object, and I am sure we are all anxious that it should be effected, because the last thing any one of us wants is friction between our American Allies and ourselves. But I suggest that friendship can be destroyed more easily by friction than from almost any other cause, and unless there is more thinking-out of the problems which will arise out of these proposals there will be friction. I can understand the desire of the American Government for exclusive jurisdiction, and of course no question arises so far as that is concerned with their own subjects and with crimes against the person and property of other Americans. But when we come to deal with crimes against British subjects, then at once we enter into a very difficult field, where it is

very necessary that we should think out how friction can be avoided and how any feeling that there has been partiality or unfairness can be prevented, for these proposals will be a fertile ground for misunderstanding unless we are very careful.
An hon. Member has suggested that this Bill does not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Quite obviously it does apply, it must apply. Clause 1, Sub-section (1) shows quite clearly that it applies to the whole United Kingdom, and in all the discussion that has taken place I am surprised that no Scottish Member is here to say a word about Scots law, because there has not been a word about Scots law from beginning to end, either here or in another place. Some of the things which have been said by the Lord Chancellor about the contents and method of American and British law seem to me to be pushed a little far.
I wish very briefly to raise one or two practical points on which I would like to have some light. One of the points is that under Clause 1, Sub-section (1) it is said that
no criminal proceedings shall be prosecuted in the United Kingdom,
and there is no definition of "criminal proceedings." I do not know whether the intention is to have some tribunal to settle this point. For example, various people have mentioned forms of action which may arise, and I wish to mention one—affiliation cases.

Sir S. Cripps: Sir S. Cripps indicated dissent.

Mr. Craik Henderson: That is what I wish to be clear about. There is no doubt that the actual proceedings are not criminal, but enforcement may involve imprisonment and have been described as of the nature of a criminal case. Will enforcement of such an order be "criminal proceedings"? It is important to know definitely whether enforcement of these Orders are, or are not, "criminal proceedings." The point is that if not criminal then it means that an American soldier would be liable to imprisonment by English courts, which I think would be very undesirable indeed. It would be much better that we should have the same provision as there is in the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, and so on, that a certain proportion of his pay was to be deducted in payment.
That is a point which should be considered. There are many others. Some have been mentioned, such as the question of perjury in our courts and contempt of the British court. Surely, it would be quite wrong that perjury in our courts should be a question to be tried in the American courts. Then there is one other point which I notice Lord Atkin, who is a very distinguished jurist, mentioned in "The Times" newspaper, the question of minor offences. I think that this should be considered more fully. It seems to me that we are laying up an unnecessary amount of trouble if we are to have all these cases referred to American courts. I am quite sure that the ordinary American Service man would much rather have his offence of drunkenness or anything of that kind dealt with immediately than have all the trouble of having it brought up before the American court. I do not quite know how it is proposed that this should be done, but supposing an American soldier on leave from a Devonshire camp gets drunk in a Highland village, what is the procedure to be? Is the local doctor or the local policeman to go a long distance to give evidence, or where is the court to be which is to try the offence? I presume that there will be courts set up in the large towns but how are they to deal with the offences committed in small villages? It seems to me that that will cause an immense amount of unnecessary trouble and inconvenience, and I would ask both the American and the British authorities to consider whether that situation cannot be dealt with in a simpler way.
Another point which I think presents some difficulty is illustrated by an instance which I saw last week. An American motor lorry was being driven by an. American soldier, and inside the lorry were eight girls and eight American soldiers. Let us assume that this lorry has a collision with a lorry being driven by an Englishman, and that some of the girls and some of the American soldiers are killed. What happens? Is there to be a coroner's inquiry and then, as might normally happen in a case like that, a charge of manslaughter is brought against both the driver of the American lorry and the driver of the British lorry? Is the American court to try the American driver and the English court to try the English driver, and the English driver to

be a witness in the American court, and vice-versa? There I see tremendous ground for bitterness arising. Supposing the American court finds the man before it not guilty, and the English court finds the man before it guilty, or vice-versa, there will be great feeling that because a man was an American citizen he was let off, or that because a man was British he was let off. That is a point which requires to be carefully considered.
The Bill leaves out one point which is of course covered in the Note. That is where an American is arrested in this country, he has to be handed over to the American authorities, but there is not a word in the Bill—I quite understand the reason—that this man must be brought to trial and punished if found guilty. Incidentally there is one point I have not fully considered. Supposing an American soldier were handed over to the American military authorities, would it be competent for the man to bring a writ of habeas corpus if he was not let out on bail or was not brought to a speedy trial? It is a point to be considered whether the suspension of the writ should not apply in these circumstances. I also think that there should be some provision in the Act or elsewhere as to what law is to apply. We are told it is the military law of the United States, but there is not a word in the Bill as to what law is to apply, or even that a man is to be brought to trial at all or punished. It is a very important thing, and one of the points about which I think the House really has the greatest grievance. We are being asked to give up this very important jurisdiction without knowing the law and the details of the law which is to be applied because, speaking for myself and, I think, for the majority of the House, we have no idea of the exact terms of the military law of the United States.
There are one or two other small points which I want to deal with; I could refer to quite a number, but I do not want to take up the time of the House. If the American courts want British people to attend for interrogation, what is the procedure? May I say this, in no unfriendly way? The American films have created, I am sure, a quite imaginary picture of third-degree methods. I wonder what will be the effect on a country girl, or man, who is asked to submit to an interrogation by the American authorities. If


such a person refuses to attend, what powers are there to compel attendance. Also, what powers have the British courts to compel the attendance of an American soldier or sailor who is subpoenaed and refuses to attend? The British court would have no power to compel attendance or to punish. I think the whole of this question requires very careful consideration. But my main objection, as I have said, is to the fact that we have not been presented with a complete picture of the position. If we had been shown that all the difficulties had been thought out, and that there was some method by which differences between the two countries could be met, I would have raised no objection. The British Government, I suppose out of a desire to be tactful, have refrained from putting down the conditions which it was their duty to impose. They have approached the subject in a spirit of apology and humility. There is no need for any Uriah Heep attitude here. We are giving up, out of friendship, rights which have been won over a very long period. It is a serious change in our constitutional and legal practice and principles, and the British Government, in the interests of the British people, should have been very specific in their demands, and should have laid down conditions in the most unambiguous terms. I am not going to oppose the Bill, but I hope that at some time we shall be given a statement showing how all these problems will be dealt with, and that they will be thought out now, and not when friction arises later.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I think the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) were exceedingly timely. Once again, the House is being asked to express its approval of a fait accompli. This Bill seeks, quite properly, to ease the path of those who have to deal with the legal position and the wellbeing of the United States troops whom we are very glad to welcome to this country. But we in this House are charged with looking after the interests of the British people, and it seems to me that we are being asked to express our approval of this Measure without having been told what code is to be operated in the American military courts, the code to which, to a certain extent, British citizens will, of necessity, be subject. We have

only been allowed to see a very small portion of the correspondence which must have passed between the respective Governments. I think that the Home Secretary was a little unfortunate in the language he used in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. He referred to the demand from the United States.

Sir S. Cripps: "Claims."

Sir A. Southby: I am bound to say that friends and Allies do not make claims or demands; they make requests. There may be—in fact, there is—extremely good reason why some Bill of this nature should be passed by the House, but we have not been told why it should be passed in such indecent haste. Hon. Members, in the quite brief discussion which has taken place, have brought forward all sorts of problems and difficulties which are bound to arise when the administration of this Act comes to be carried out. I myself have one or two points to bring forward. What is to be the position of a British subject who is involved with an American subject in a breach of the peace? Both are to be arrested by a British policeman but what are the powers of arrest of an American military policeman? Has he power to arrest a British subject, or must he get a British policeman to make the arrest? Who is to decide, and in what court is it to be decided, which of the individuals was responsible for the breach of the peace? Are they to be tried in different courts? Is each to be a witness in the court belonging to the country of the other? Other speakers have asked, what is to be the means by which witnesses will be compelled to attend court, but if a British subject declines to attend an American court, how is his attendance to be enforced? If the refusal is persisted in, and becomes contempt of court, how is the individual to be punished, and in whose court is he to be punished? Much more important is the question of who is to plead for the British subject in these cases. If a British subject is involved in some trouble with an American, is he to be allowed to have a solicitor or a barrister to watch the case on his behalf in the American court? The British subject is accustomed to having a case which involves him tried in open court. Will these American courts be open in the same way as the British courts are open? That is not clear. The hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson) raised


a point to which we should pay particular attention. in a case where an affiliation order has been made, involving an American subject, how is payment to be enforced? Under ordinary circumstances, the individual comes before the British court, and if payment is not forthcoming he can be punished. Who is to punish the American subject, and what certainty will there be that the payment will be made? What oath is to be administered to a British citizen attending an American court?
What reciprocity is there to be? We now have camps established in the United States, where British and Dominion naval officers and men are being right royally entertained, with the greatest kindness and hospitality, which they deeply appreciate. I feel sure that they will maintain the good name of their country by not committing any offences; but if any offences are committed, are they to be tried by British courts-martial, sitting over there? If not, why is there any delay' in setting up in the United States facilities corresponding to those which are being set up by this Bill?
I am going to make a suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. There will obviously be a considerable amount of doubt and suspicion in the minds of ordinary British subjects—engendered perhaps by too close a study of American films dealing with legal proceedings—as to what is going to happen to them when they get into one of those American courts-martial. Since it is not yet quite clear to what extent they are going to be able to have their own legal advisers to look after them I would like to make a suggestion to the Attorney-General and it is this. Would it be possible for some British magistrate or Judge or recorder to sit in these courts as a kind of assessor in order to smooth out the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise in the application of the law which involves the subjects of two countries? It might be of the greatest possible help to the American military court to have some local magistrate sitting with it so that he could help with advice and whose presence in the court as an assessor in an official capacity would give confidence to the British witness or the British subject who was involved in the case. I ask the Attorney-General to give special consideration to that point, because I believe it would help this scheme to work.
At the same time the House must realise that we are, as many hon. and learned Gentlemen have said during the course of this Debate, doing something which has never before been done in this country. It is a complete departure from constitutional procedure. It has been done presumably at the request of the United States. It is a great pity that more has not been told us about how the request originated. You do not improve the good relationship between the two countries by putting a fait accompli on the table and as it were asking this House to agree to what is in fact a "pig in a poke." It does nothing but harm to come to all sorts of agreements and arrangements and then come to the House and say in effect, "You must agree to this. If you do not agree to it, you will endanger relationships between ourselves and the United States. You must not criticise unduly lest that should lead to misunderstanding on the other side of the Atlantic." There has been a great deal too much of that. The cause of Anglo-American friendship is not improved thereby. I have lived and worked and enjoyed a great deal of happiness in the United States, and I am certain that the desire for that sort of thing does not come from there. We have our rights and duties to perform, and so have they. We should all get on a great deal better if this House were consulted before major agreements of all kinds were entered into.
This is only another instance. Recently in the Press there have been announcements about the possibility of the appointment of an American generalissimo. That is not an arrangement which ought to be entered into and then suddenly put before this House and the House asked to agree to it without the matter having been previously discussed by the House. As regards our discussions to-day, it is a great pity that there should not have been more time to consider this very important Bill. If it is important to help the work of those who are responsible for the direction of the American Forces, then by all means let us pass this Measure, but let us make it clear that we realise what we are doing. We want a great deal more information about the code which is going to be operated in the American courts, and it is our duty and our right to ask for that information in the interests of the people whom we represent as Members of the House of Commons.
In conclusion, I ask the Attorney-General whether he will pay attention to the suggestion which I have put forward in all humility, and also I ask the Leader of the House whether he will perhaps take note of the objections which have come not from one side of the House alone but from all quarters of the House that this House does not like being asked to agree to a fait accompli. It is getting a little tired of being told in effect that too much criticism or any idea of disagreement with that fait accompli will not meet with approval.

Mr. Pickthorn: I make no apology for delaying the House, nor do I make any apology for the fact that much of what I am going to say will be repetition of what has already been said. It is extremely important in present circumstances that His Majesty's Government should know what is thought by Members of the House, and by how many Members. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), who spoke first from the Front Bench opposite, warned us all against pedantry, and that a little frightened me from hanging my discourse upon one single word. On the other hand, in the next sentence, he explained to us that the primary importance of this Bill is more political in the sense of conserving the relations between two great countries than it is technical or concerned with the mere administration of justice, however important. Basing myself on his second sentence, I would ask the attention of the House to the repeated use of the word "claim."
I am not familiar with this kind of Bill and this kind of Schedule, but I suppose it is in order to discuss every word that is in the Schedule, and one could discuss the Schedule at very great length. I do not propose to do that, but I would say incidentally that I do not think it quite rises to the literary standards which we have been accustomed to expect from the Foreign Office. However, the House generally expects literary instruction from my Oxford colleague rather than from myself. The expression in parts of this Schedule is not only inelegant from a literary point of view but inaccurate, and indeed, I might almost say, that it is illiterate unless it means what I think it ought not to mean. It seems to me, that on the plain reading of these words, the Foreign Secretary did allow himself to

compromise this House over legislation. He comes very near it in his first sentence, where there is a very perfunctory sort of nod to Parliamentary sovereignty over his left shoulder, but in his last sentence he comes nearer:
If the foregoing arrangements are acceptable to the United States Government, I have the honour to propose that the present note and Your Excellency's reply be regarded as constituting an agreement between the two Governments to which effect shall be given as from the date on which the legislation to which I have already referred takes effect.
There is nothing subjunctive about it, there is nothing in it which allows for the possibility that legislation might not take effect. The Foreign Secretary being a rather exceptionally an Englishman and not a Scotsman, the word "shall" is presumably used because it is meant. Altogether it seems to me that the accomplished fact in a poke to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) referred is quite unusually accomplished on this occasion. It is like the baby in the "Bab Ballads" or somewhere, born more than complete, with a beard and false teeth. I suggest that the Government are on this occasion carrying to a point almost beyond parity the habit which has grown up of not doing anything until the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, and then coming down to this House and saying that it is too late to do anything about it or discuss it or even clearly comprehend it, and we have to swallow it as it stands. War is, no doubt, a complex, an aggregate of odious necessities, and for all I have to say to the contrary, this Bill is a necessity too. The business of His Majesty's Government is to see that these necessities are made as little odious as can be arranged, and are brought to us in such a way and at such time that we can swallow them and digest them with the minimum of odium and inconvenience. I suggest that upon this occasion the Government really have passed all tolerable bounds.
I would point out this too. His Majesty's Government choose the hours at which we shall sit, and in my judgment choose them extremely badly. One of the worst things about our conduct of the war is the hours we sit and the days we sit. A technique has grown up by which one Minister comes down to us and makes a perfunctory speech and then goes away and another Minister comes into the House later and reads the notes taken for


him by a more or less competent subordinate, and, after listening for 40 minutes or so, he winds up the Debate. I do not know how many Members who listened to the Home Secretary are present now, but I make so bold as to say that anybody listening to him will agree with me that he treated this matter in a most perfunctory way. It might have been a Bill about rat-catching on Canvey Island. He told us that the American Army already had jurisdiction in domestic purposes for its members. He said, "All this Bill does," and so forth.
One good thing about the Schedule to the Bill is the word "desire" in the phrase,
desire of the Government of the United States for this to happen.
His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, who has been accustomed now to large and not merely municipal business for a considerable number of months, presumably uses words he means to use, and he told us that the United States Government had "claimed" this. I should not have troubled the House if he had not said that three times. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, he said it three times, and I beg hon. Members who were not present to believe it, although they will no doubt find it difficult to believe that he was so very repetitive. I think the Foreign Secretary should be here. If he, in the document which is put before us, uses the word "desire," and later His Majesty's Secretary of State comes here and tells us three times that it is not a desire but a claim, they really should agree about these things. If neither can trust the other to use the same words, then both should be here in order that the right coat-tail should be pulled at the appropriate moment. I could speak at length upon this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] For two pins I would.

Mr. Denville: Mr. Denville (Newcastle-on-Tyne, Central) rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: No, I will not give way now—it is too late. It needs very little imagination to tie on to this Bill everything that has happened in our previous history to this date and everything that has happened in America's history to this date. It requires little law learning to think of difficult corollary

questions. I think indeed that in some ways if one has a little law it is easier to put corollary questions than if one had considerable learning. However, the Bill is no doubt a necessity, if an odious necessity. If anybody called a Division to-day I think on the whole it would not be proper to vote against the Bill, because, obviously, at this stage it would be causing the greatest inconvenience to two great Governments if the Bill did not pass at the expected moment. Therefore, I do not propose to discuss at greater length the implications of the Bill and the corollary questions that might be raised upon it, but I hope the House will not-leave His Majesty's Ministers in any doubt at all that it considers this to be a very grave case of the growing practice of bringing matters before us at so late a stage and in such a form that they are unrelated not only to discussion but even to the comprehension of this House.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I think it is important to emphasise a few of one or two of the statements which have been made and, principally, that this Bill only affects dealings with the soldiers of the United States Forces who are present in this country. It is in respect of these individuals that the jurisdiction of our courts is excluded and that they will be dealt with by courts-martial. It is a matter in which we are concerned, and I am not for a moment minimising the constitutional gravity and importance of the subject which this Measure, if passed, will legalise. Members may not have been under any misapprehension, but words have been used which suggested that this Bill might enable some British subjects to be taken off before an American court, and, therefore, it is desirable to make perfectly clear at the outset what will happen.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Not even as witnesses?

The Attorney-General: As witnesses, yes. But I will come to that in a few minutes. I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I dealt first with a number of specific questions which have been put during the Debate and reserve until the end of my speech one or two of the more general observations I would like to make on the main principle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones)


and others asked about the code. The code is the American equivalent for our Army Act, and it is called "The Articles of War." It is an application of American military law to the hypothetical offenders that will be applied by American courts-martial. Probably every Member of the House knows that under our own Army Act, with certain exceptions, what we would normally call civil offences can be dealt with by courts-martial. It a soldier commits burglary a civil court has jurisdiction, but he can be dealt with, under the appropriate Section of the Army Act, for the offence, and under the American military code there is full power to deal with all offences. Indeed, under the general Article which the Home Secretary read there is power to treat as an offence against discipline any disregard of any local law or regulation. Take, for instance, anything like a blackout offence. The American authorities assure us not only that they can but that they will deal with matters of that kind as an offence against discipline, as of course they are. One of the hall marks of a well disciplined force is the way it behaves when it is in the country of an Ally. In an occupied country different questions arise. Does it go about committing offences, disregarding local regulations and so on, or does it not? They have satisfied us that they can deal with these matters.
With regard to the code, we will arrange that a copy of this book will be put into the Library. There are not a great many copies in this country, but we will arrange that. The general layout of the code is that after dealing with certain military offences, duelling, and so on, it deals with murder and rape under a separate article. Perhaps it is worth noting, in passing, that the penalty for rape is death or imprisonment for life, which, of course, is a higher scale of penalty than we have in this country. Broadly speaking, as my right hon. Friend said, the penalties laid down in what we are told is the general scale of penalties would, I think, be satisfactory to hon. and right hon. Members. It then deals with various special crimes; there are articles dealing with manslaughter, with forgery, with burglary and so on. Then there is a general article, which my right hon. Friend read, which can be given a very wide application and which brings in offences, whether substantial or technical, other than those

previously dealt with in the special articles. The courts, of course, will be courts-martial in the ordinary case, though for minor matters there is, as one would expect, a power in the commanding officer to deal with them, as there is under our Army Act.
Some reference has been made to the letter which Lord Atkin wrote, and one of the points which he raised, and which has been raised by hon. Members here to-day, is the question of sexual offences. We have satisfied ourselves on that matter. I have referred to rape; carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 will be dealt with as what they call statutory rape, that is to say, rape to which consent is no answer, and that is an offence under their military law and will be dealt with as such. The only difference so far as I can see is that possibly the defence which is available here, if the male is under 23 years of age, may not be available under American law.

Mr. Silverman: What is their age of consent?

The Attorney-General: Sixteen, the same as ours. We have satisfied ourselves that that very important part of the code will be applied, and applied with vigour, by the authorities. Then there was a reference by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen to some remarks which my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor made in another place with regard to supplementary machinery, I do not think that he intended to suggest anything in the nature of the tribunal to which my bon. Friend referred, but certainly there will be machinery for joint investigation, where it is necessary, of offences. The Americans will assist us in cases where we say that their men may have been involved in an offence committed by a British subject, and we shall assist them in the converse case.
May I say here what is, I think, very important and really goes to the root of this matter, and that is that we have had, are having and we know that we shall continue to have, the most cordial and friendly co-operation and help from the American authorities in the administration and working of this Measure? I quite agree that it is a scheme which could not work if the parties to it were to be at arm's length, and were standing on their dignity. The American authorities no doubt are very appreciative of the


way in which their desires, as expressed in the Note, have been met subject to the approval of the House, and they will, I am sure, give every help not only in the administrative working of the Measure but in seeing that it is carried out in a way which will be as satisfactory as possible to the Members of this House and to the members of the public affected, and so as to promote or at any rate to preserve and maintain the existing cordial relations, which, of course, they are most anxious to do.

Mr. Garro Jones: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point with regard to the machinery for the joint administration of the provisions of this Bill, there is already provision in the Schedule for the joint investigation of matters preliminary to the trial, that is to say, investigating and preparing evidence, and so on. The suggestion which many hon. Members have made was that there should be some tribunal or body which would deal with difficulties of greater importance as they arise. It was to that reference of the Lord Chancellor in another place that I drew attention, which had nothing to do with the collecting of evidence but with these important matters of collaboration. The sentence which I did not read is as follows:
If there be difficulties"—
he was referring to difficulties of a major character—
it may be that hereafter some supplementary arrangements will be made.
The contention of many hon. Members has been that serious difficulties may arise and that, in order to prevent the development of such difficulties, there should be prompt machinery for bringing them to a concrete conclusion.

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with the spirit of that idea, but it may be well not to try and set up too definite a machinery until we are certain what form the difficulties will take. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend and the House that the American authorities are in constant and close touch with our authorities, and that if any difficulty does arise, every step will be taken to see that a satisfactory solution is arrived at with a minimum of delay.
A question was asked about witnesses. The position about witnesses is that

under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Schedule to the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Order, which has already been issued, the provisions of our Naval Discipline Act and of the Army Act relating to witnesses at Service courts, apply to witnesses at United States courts-martial. The problem may to some extent already have arisen; the American court-martial has the same powers as one of our courts-martial to summon witnesses. I am not sure whether the final Orders have been made, but if not they will be made very shortly; it is also provided that witnesses appearing before United States Service courts enjoy the same immunities and privileges as if they were appearing before one of our own Service courts.

Mr. Craik Henderson: Who punishes the witnesses if they do not attend the American courts?

The Attorney-General: If a British subject disobeys an order to go to an American court, he will be dealt with by our courts. A question was also asked about the reports of proceedings in newspapers, and whether witnesses whose statements might be reported would have the same protection as prevails in respect of legal proceedings here. That, I think, is quite clear. Section 3 of the Law of Libel Act, which is the Section in question, refers to any court exercising judicial authority. It is not restricted to the High Courts and, quite plainly, applies to these courts.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves this point concerning witnesses, have we power to summon witnesses who may be members of the American Armed Forces?

The Attorney-General: That does not arise under this Bill, of course, but we have the same power of summoning witnesses. There may always be some difficulty, as there might be with, say. Dominion Forces, in getting a subpoena served. I do not mean to suggest that they make any difficulty; if the subpoena is handed to the commanding officer of the American or Dominion soldier who is wanted, there is no difficulty.

Dr. Thomas: Perhaps I am not making it quite clear. Paragraph 8 of the Foreign Secretary's letter in the Schedule says:


His Majesty's Government trust that they may count upon the assistance of the American authorities.…
It is very indefinite.

The Attorney-General: I think that is a right now. It is always done that way; naturally it is a matter of international courtesy. Suppose a soldier of any Force is concerned in some trouble. He disappears back to his unit, and the ordinary machinery for getting in touch with him is through the commanding officer of the visiting Force. I have no doubt that they will give every assistance to us if we want one of their men as a witness in our proceedings. The question was raised about the right of appeal and delays, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) referred to the fact, which we all remember reading in the newspapers, that there were great delays in American criminal proceedings—these were civil proceedings, not proceedings before American courts-martial. There is no appeal in the ordinary sense, but there is a review of a kind with which my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt familiar. There are special provisions preventing delays, and there is absolutely no reason to think that these matters will not be promptly dealt with.

Mr. Clement Davies: Surely there is jurisdiction in the American courts to quash?

The Attorney-General: I do not think so. I gather that my hon. and learned Friend is suggesting that some process could be taken in a court in the United States to quash the sentence of a court-martial here. I understand that that is not so. Suppose our Forces were in America. In that case you could not proceed here in respect of a court-martial decision which was taken in the United States against a British officer. That is the normal procedure with regard to appeals as far as I understand it, but I cannot be too categorical. Certainly every effort will be made by the authorities here to see that cases are dealt with expeditiously. I was asked about the position in the Dominions. This Bill does not apply to the Dominions, but my right hon. Friend, when introducing it, said that in Australia and New Zealand, where this problem has also arisen, negotiations similar to those which have resulted in this Measure are being conducted.

Sir A. Southby: What about Canada?

The Attorney-General: I do not know that there are American Forces stationed in Canada, but, if they are, it is for the American Government to take the matter up with the Canadian Government.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Attorney-General be a little more concise on that point, because in the Schedule it states:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are prepared to extend the proposed legislation where necessary to British Colonies and Dependencies under their authority.
Does he mean that before they do that there will be serious consultations with the Dominions and Dependencies?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. That refers to Clause 3 of the Bill, which gives us power to extend this Measure to the Colonies. The Dominions, as always, will deal with their own affairs. It will apply to Northern Ireland. A particular class of Bill has to have a special extension Clause, but a Bill of this character includes Northern Ireland without using those special words. It is quite clear that Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 is to meet this sort of case. Suppose I, not knowing a man was a member of the United States Armed Forces, proceeded against him, then I should be doing something contrary to the Bill. Of course, if I had acted completely in ignorance, it would be wrong that I should be liable for what happened. Once it became known that the man was an American soldier and subject to American military law, the proceedings would stop. This provision is inserted to prevent innocent people, who proceeded in ignorance of the fact that a man was an American soldier, finding themselves under any liability.
Various Members raised the question of a joint offence—where a British soldier or a British civilian and a United States soldier were jointly concerned in an offence. Let me make it quite clear that a British civilian or a British soldier cannot be taken before an American court. No doubt the matter would be one for discussion between the two authorities. There might be no great disadvantage in having one tried before one court and the other tried before the other court, but, if it were disadvantageous, then it would be a case where the two Governments could discuss what I may call the "waiver provision," in which case the American soldier could


be tried in a British court with the British offender. With regard to the question of motor accidents, which was raised by the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson), I do not think you very often prosecute both drivers for manslaughter. Normally, investigation results in showing that one man is more to blame, and very rarely would manslaughter proceedings be taken against both drivers. Certainly, theoretically it is possible to imagine a case in which both drivers are guilty of criminal negligence to such a degree that it constitutes manslaughter, but. I do not think it is likely to arise very often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), who dislikes this Bill, suggested that it placed a United States soldier in a different position from that in his own country. I am not sure that it is so different as he thinks, because under the United States code the obligation which exists in certain cases to hand over to the civil authority is abrogated in war-time. I think he will find, although I must not be to dogmatic about this, that under the American code, which is somewhat different from ours, all offences are, in fact, dealt with by courts-martial during war-time, even though there are no actual hostilities in the country. It is really a matter more for the American authorities than for us, but, far from putting a United States soldier in a different position, it substantially puts him in the same position as in his own country, where normally all offences are dealt with by a military court.

Mr. Silverman: I was thinking of the illustration which I gave of the sanction, by which ultimately the act of a soldier is subject to the jurisdiction of a civil court. I was thinking of the calling-out of the military in case of riot or disturbance. Are we to understand that in America the American civil court would not exercise such jurisdiction over American soldiers?

The Attorney-General: I must not be too dogmatic about this. If you take the broad picture, I understand that in wartime at any rate, and also to some extent in peace-time, the whole range of offences are dealt with by courts-martial and not by civil courts. In this country, as we know, certain offences, even in war-time, are dealt with by civil courts. I think that is less so in America than here, and it

is no doubt another reason why the Americans desire this procedure. Then there is the case, if I may paraphrase what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds said, of the American soldier stationed at Land's End who commits an offence at John o' Groats. I should like to say that the American authorities are prepared to agree and will see that their courts sit, as far as is possible, in the very near neighbourhood of the offence. It was because that would not be practical in all cases that the waiver clause was agreed to; because you might have a minor offence committed a great distance away where it Would be a waste of everyone's time to send the necessary personnel to constitute a court-martial. It is to meet the convenience of members of the British public who might be required as witnesses, that courts will be assembled at the scene, or as near as may be to the scene, of the offence. To regard them as being stationary in the big cities does not give the right picture. It is intended that they should move to where the evidence is required.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) asked whether the United States military police could arrest a British subject. The answer is "No." He took the case of a breach of the peace committed by a British and an American soldier. I quite agree that one would be taken to one court and one to another. Again, generally, when a quarrel results, one man is more to blame than another, though it is theoretically possible to imagine a case where both are to blame. I do not think any great inconvenience can arise.

Sir A. Southby: I meant a case where both were concerned together in a breach of the peace—conspiring together.

The Attorney-General: Unless the waiver clause is in operation, one would have to go to one court and one to another. It is not infrequent not to have all the conspirators in the dock. You can charge a single man. It may happen that one man has flitted overseas, and A.B. is prosecuted for conspiring with CD., C.D. not being in the dock at all. Unless otherwise necessary for security reasons, the courts will sit as open courts, and those affected will be able to go in, taking solicitors with them if they want to, and hear the proceedings. The solicitor will


not have a right of audience but will be in a similar position to someone representing an interested party in our own courts. If security questions are involved, they will, of course, sit in camera.

Sir A. Southby: In a case where a summons for assault would normally be taken out by a British subject, if the case was heard in an American court, who would prosecute? Normally in our own courts it would be the solicitor of the British subject.

The Attorney-General: The prosecuting authority under the American military law. I was asked what form of oath will be given. It is almost word for word the oath administered in our own courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who does not like the Bill, took exception to the phrase "subject to the necessary Parliamentary authority." Surely that is the ordinary way to put it. It is plain enough. If Parliament repudiates the matter, that is an end of it. The phrase at the end, "the legislation previously referred to," is the legislation that gives the necessary Parliamentary authority. Everyone knows that this sort of thing cannot be done without Parliament, and it was not necessary to emphasise that fact to the American Ambassador.

Mr. Pickthorn: The sentence to which I particularly referred was No. 11.

The Attorney-General: That refers to the legislation already referred to. My hon. Friend is entitled to his own opinion, but I do not see any impropriety in the words used and they seem to make the position quite clear.
May I say a word or two on the more general issues that are raised? Obviously this is an unprecedented proposal, but we live in unprecedented times. It is undoubtedly true that in the course of our history we have on many fewer occasions had the Forces of an Ally present on British soil than in the case of Continental countries. There have been some Dutch Forces here from time to time in our past history, and I was told of an assault committed by a Dutch soldier on a local inhabitant and the magistrate having great difficulty in preventing the commanding officer stringing him up the nearest oak tree. But that was a long time ago. We had American troops in the

last war, and the Americans made exactly the same request that they are making to-day; it was only because the time was shorter, and that agreement was not come to, that Parliament was not asked to legislate oil these lines. But in fact American soldiers were dealt with by our courts, and they made exactly the same request.

Mr. Silverman: And we refused it.

The Attorney-General: No, the negotiations were not completed. The United States Government put this request forward on grounds of policy to some extent, and on constitutional grounds as far as the Forces are concerned, and they asked the Government to give it favourable consideration. I should like to make it clear that it is not solely a question of jurisdiction or prestige. The American authorities feel, I am sure we should feel the same ourselves with regard to an offence committed by an American soldier in our territory, that it was a double offence. First of all, there is the actual act, whether burglary, rape, murder or grievous bodily harm. Then there is the fact that it is done by a soldier, which is damaging to the reputation of the Army, and also something likely to impair the cordial and friendly relations between the Forces and the civil population among whom they are living and moving in present circumstances. We should feel just the same about our own Forces, that an offender had not only done something wrong in itself but had let down the name of the British Army. That is an element which a court-martial can take into account in giving its sentence, but a civil court here could not.

Mr. C. Davies: I did not mean that. I meant that the offender knows that it is an offence against military law.

The Attorney-General: The civil courts obviously could not take into account the fact that the man had done something which was damaging to the reputation of the Army to which he belongs. It could not take into account the fact that he was impairing the friendly relations between the visiting Force and the host population. These are matters which the military court can take into account, and the American authorities desire them to be taken into account. They desire that these offences should be dealt with as


offences not only in relation to the act criminal in itself, but in relation to the breach of discipline and the effect which that has on the relations between the American Forces and the population of this country. That, I suggest, is a very important element of this problem, and I can assure the House that if is one of the reasons which led the American authorities to ask us to agree to this proposal. This is, as every speaker has said, a novel proposal. It is one which at first sight legitimately brings us up with rather a shock. That the acceptance of it by this House will conduce to the good relations between the American Government and their Forces in this country and our Government, there is no doubt at all, and I believe that in its actual workings it will conduce more to the maintenance of order and the prevention of the offences which will come within its scope than if we adopted a different procedure.

Sir A. Southby: My right hon. and learned Friend did not refer to my suggestion about the possibility of a British magistrate sitting in the courts to help.

The Attorney-General: I think that that would be very difficult, but it would be a matter for them. We should find it difficult if we adopted a similar procedure in America to have an American magistrate sitting in the court. They are ready to pay attention to any representations we may make as to the working of this scheme, but I think that the suggestion of a magistrate sitting in court will be difficult to adopt.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say why there is not a Clause limiting the operation of the Measure to the present emergency?

The Attorney-General: Because when all the American troops go, there will be nothing for the Measure to operate upon.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read, a Second time."

COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. Creech Jones: The American Ambassador remarked the other day that a survey of American public opinion showed that there was a greater divergence of view on. British Colonial policy than on any other subject dividing the two nations. If that misunderstanding exists in the United States there is also in our own country and in this House a great deal of misunderstanding in regard to our Colonial policy. I therefore make no apology for asking the House to give again to-day some little attention to our Colonial responsibilities. The broad outline of Government policy was given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies in the Debate a few weeks ago on the Colonial Estimates. My purpose to-day is to draw attention to a number of special problems which have occurred during the Session and which have given rise to some misgiving and doubt.
I wish I had found at the Colonial Office the open door to which the Under-Secretary referred in the last Debate. As far as I, personally, am concerned, I usually get a very sympathetic hearing at the front door, but there seem to be many inner doors. Everybody behaves with great charm and everyone treats me very nicely. I am not likely, however, to find myself on the floor through falling into space as suggested by the Under-Secretary but because of the existence of unforeseen inner doors which most effectively block any resolute action.
Let me say something, first, about the war effort. My criticism has been directed on a number of occasions in the past to the fact that the Colonial peoples are not always able to contribute to the war effort according to their capacity or their wishes. The Under-Secretary recently told us of the contributions being mobilised by the Colonies for the war effort. He said that the Colonial Office were stimulating exports of the minerals and raw materials we needed and that we were creating export machinery for that purpose. The Colonial peoples were growing more food


and developing their own resources more and more, which, he said, was good in war or in peace because these factors contributed to health, nutrition, soil conservation, and so on. Further, local industries were being stimulated; and imports were being limited by Government bulk purchase of goods. All of us would agree that most of these things are of permanent value in Colonial life, but I would add one or two reservations about this policy.
Industrialisation and the exploitation of minerals and other natural wealth in our Colonial Empire should be very carefully controlled and developed with an eye on future policy and the consequences when the war is over, because such exploitation of mineral and natural wealth has a profoundly disturbing effect on native life in all its aspects. It is also important that in planning Colonial economy to keep an eye on maintaining some sort of balance in Colonial economies. In any case, it seems to me that when the Government opens out new resources and grants new concessions steps should be taken to see that definite conditions are laid down with respect to wages, conditions of employment, welfare conditions, profits, royalties, the application of I.L.O. Convention and, sometimes, the ultimate ownership of the resources concerned. It is also important, in the second place, that in creating machinery for the control of exports and imports monopolists should not be strengthened. In some of our Colonies their insinuating influence is pretty strong. Already certain steps which have been taken by the Colonial Office have created some apprehension among merchants and others both here and in West Africa and other Colonies. No steps should strengthen existing monopolies. Further, if we are promoting local industries, I ask that the Government should do it through local native enterprise on co-operative lines if possible, and that there should be the maximum of cooperation within the framework of an ordered plan. I hope that certain proposals which are being considered at the moment inside the Colonial Office in regard to West Africa will receive the endorsement of the Government.
In regard to raw materials and products, I hope the Colonial Office will give every encouragement to co-operative production, will encourage co-operative

marketing and credit, and take steps to ensure much more rationalism in the handling of products before they reach consumers. Above all, there is very real need that producers should be given a guaranteed price. That applies to the small native producers as much as to the larger concerns. There should be some stability in regard to price, and the small peasant producer should be shown some way out of his chronic poverty which often means serfdom to him. The Government should take all the necessary steps to ensure a price which will give a reasonable standard of living to prime producers engaged in meeting the world's needs. Before I leave this side of my argument I need scarcely add, as being fundamental, that I hope that nowhere will the Colonial Office, or those responsible, permit native land to be further alienated or allow individual land ownership to be introduced.
I recognise that it will be one of the problems after the war, in applying the trade and economic freedoms of the Atlantic Charter, to reconcile the reasonable claims of the Colonies with the kind of economically regulated world which we hope to create. We shall want new Colonial industrial enterprises to get on their own feet, we shall want no unreasonable restrictions in respect of their goods and products and the markets there for. The Colonies economically need a fair chance, yet they have to be integrated into a larger world economic order.
In passing, may I also say that from time to time I receive complaints and read complaints that local Colonial Governments do not go fast enough or show enough drive in regard to the war effort. Sometimes the people are not actively associated with the effort. I suggest that this state of things ought to be remedied. It is not only true on the economic side, it is a criticism made by the Colonial peoples in respect of their defence—civil defence, military organisation and the rest of it, and repeatedly voiced in West Indian and West African newspapers. I do not refer to Palestine because I understand that later this week we shall be discussing the special problem of the Jews. There is one observation, however, which it is necessary to make in respect to this war effort. The Colonial territories, because they are apt to be regarded as Imperial possessions, as material possessions, are


being exploited to the full. We are using or proceeding to use their limited mineral resources; we are using their manhood, and profoundly upsetting their native life. The Under-Secretary remarked in a recent broadcast on the generosity of the Colonial peoples, which I am sure we all gratefully acknowledge. But, after all, the Colonies, if I may use his words in the last Debate, are not his "goodly heritage." They are the territories of the Colonial peoples, and these people have views and wishes. There is room in regard to all economic and social development for much more consultation with them and their permission obtained for what the Imperial power itself does. I want to stress that the corollary of this considerable contribution from the Colonial peoples to our present struggle for freedom and civilisation is our responsibility for bringing them more rapidly to political maturity and social and economic prosperity. They were ex-, eluded by the Prime Minister, from the proposals of the Atlantic Charter, though the recent speech by Mr. Sumner Welles for America does not seem to make that discrimination.
The other night my right hon. Friend reminded us that many soldiers from the Colonies were playing an active part in this war and he told us that they would in due course return to their homes. They will have travelled. They will have gathered a pretty wide experience, and some will have had the advantages of education. We have to remember that these soldiers will be a most stimulating element in Colonial life after the war. Because of those facts, I suggest that in the West Indies, as in West Africa, we should be a little more concerned about preventing the frustration experienced by these people to-day. We should seek to secure their fullest co-operation. As the recommendation of the West Indies Royal Commission put it,
the Governments should adopt a much more positive policy in bringing their point of view before the mass of the people and in explaining in much more simple terms the reasons which lie behind their decisions on major problems.
That point has been raised also in regard to the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. Schemes are in active discussion in the respective Colonies, but too often the people vitally concerned are not brought into consultation at all. It is

one of the complaints of West Africans over here that there is far too little consultation and far too much patronising, too much of doing good to the people, instead of inviting them to use their brains and to co-operate in the changes which we think desirable.
I would further suggest that steps should be taken now to make some progress in political institutions. I have been a little apprehensive at recent developments in the Continent of Africa, particularly in Kenya and Northern Rhodesia. For the purposes of the war we have been obliged to set up new authorities, executive authorities, with powers in regard to economic mobilisation. At the same time, so far as the Legislative Council and the Executive Councils of both territories are concerned, there has been no recognition that the black people live in an overwhelming majority in these territories. I have said before that it is not that there are no educated black people. There are, and some of them are experienced. If you create new authorities—which may be of some importance in the future constitutional developments of those territories—it seems reasonable to ask that, in regard to existing constitutional machinery, there shall be more representation from the great masses of the black people in those areas.
Likewise, there is a strong tendency for the colour bar to increase its strength in Northern Rhodesia at the present time. I hope the Government are watching that situation with very great care and that some action can be taken in Northern Rhodesia at the earliest possible moment to check this very unhappy and very unfair development. It is also desirable that we should look again at the constitutional arrangements in West Africa, to see whether we cannot make indirect rule a little more flexible than it is, and whether we cannot immediately take some steps in regard to what the West Africans themselves have been demanding for a long period, some fundamental reform in municipal government. I see no reason for prolonged delay.
While I am dealing with certain difficulties in our Colonial policy I might mention the clamour for constitutional reform in Mauritius and in the West Indies. I received a vague promise from the Colonial Office a year or so before the war that constitutional reform in Mauritius would receive the serious con-


sideration of the Department. The great mass of the workers in that Colony still clamour for political expression in the local legislative council, but nothing is done, although all other interests can be expressed and a place found for them. That situation has become intolerable. In regard to the West Indies, why this very slow progress? The Colonial Office sometimes shelter themselves behind the terms of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but let me point out that since the issue of the report—which we have not been privileged to see, although I do not understand why it should not now be published—vast changes have occurred in the world. There has been the impact of war on those Colonies. These people have shown considerable desire to play a larger part, hot only in the war, but in their own local affairs. The war has gone right into the Caribbean sea. America has, with our permission, established bases in a number of these Colonies. Therefore, the people feel that if defence is in the hands of America and if much of their economic future will be tied up with American organisation, it is important that they should, at least, have some effective control in regard to their local affairs.
Why, therefore, do we dilly-dally so long in respect of representative government and of moves towards more responsible government? The people themselves are clamouring for change. It is not good enough to say, "There is a Franchise Commission working in Trinidad and another in British Guiana." The Royal Commission said that more and not less participation by the people in the work of Government was a real necessity for lasting social advancement. I would urge that it is important to press on with constitution-making in the West Indies, even to permit the beginnings of responsible government, and, in the case of most of the Colonies, of real representative -government. May I also draw attention to our continued failure to do very much in regard to the constitution of Bermuda, Barbados and the Bahamas? Labour difficulties are arising—the failure to adopt I.L.O. Convention is a case in point. There are intolerable labour conditions. Yet, we have no authority over the governments of those three Colonies, though it has long been obvious to everyone that the archaic constitutions should be drastically remodelled.
While dealing with political change may I make some reference to the position of civil liberty in certain parts of out Colonial areas? What is the answer, I ask the Under-Secretary of State, to the continued detention of Domingo in Jamaica? What has Domingo done? Is there any reason that he should be under look and key merely at the pleasure of the Governor, while no evidence exists, certainly to the outside world, why his detention has been allowed to last so long? Let me refer also to Wallace Johnson. This man was taken possession of by the authorities before the war was actually declared. Some excuse was found; he went through a process of criminal prosecution. Almost before he left prison he was put under detention again, and then, because of the clamour, he was released, but not unconditionally. He is conditionally released, and the most wretched arrangements are made as to the conditions under which he shall live. Unreasonable conditions are imposed upon him in regard to his living, I do not understand why, because a man has allied himself with working-class societies, because he is a trade union leader, these onerous conditions should continue to operate in his case. Again, is there now any reason why the leaders of the Kikiyu Central Association and other kindred organisations should continue in detention? Why should so many of the natural leaders of the people of Kenya continue to be withdrawn from them?
Finally, on the question of civil liberty, I want to refer to the operation of the Defence Regulations in the West Indies. Have those Defence Regulations been brought into line with the Defence Regulations in this country? Certainly they were in Jamaica as a result of pressure. But for several years many people have been detained in the Colonies for no adequate reason, and all our efforts to obtain from the Colonial Office an explanation of why these people are detained have been completely unavailing. I have just received from Jamaica a telegram telling me that three or four persons whom I have been trying to get released for considerably over a year have been released at last. But what was the purpose of their detention? They were simply swept into detention and it was nobody's concern to see that justice was done.
I want now to refer to a number of economic difficulties. Most hon. Members


on these Benches are conscious, from correspondence and messages reaching them from the Colonies, that the cost of living is rising, that wages do not keep pace with the increase in the cost of living, and that conditions in many areas are now becoming almost intolerable—so intolerable that in a number of Colonies, in spite of their patriotic zeal to support the war effort, the working people are threatening strikes. It is no good saying that the Essential Work Order is a satisfactory expedient for meeting a situation of this kind. You cannot fob off the working people with the idea that in the course of time a report will be made on the cost of living and something may be done about their wages. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that if the Essential Work Order is made operative, there should be, at any rate, definite guarantees in respect of conditions of employment, that if the strike weapon is withdrawn from these men, other means should be open to them for the purpose of securing proper adjustments in their standards. This situation in regard to the lowering of the standard of living as a result of the war situation is a condition that is prevalent in West Africa and the West Indies. I have just received a telegram from Ceylon pleading that I make representations with the Colonial Office on this very matter. In view of this feeling, I ask that the local Governments should make some effort to adjust what has become an almost intolerable situation. It is not enough to say that these people must make some sacrifice for the war effort.
The second point of an economic nature that I want to raise is forced labour. I shall not now discuss the problem of forced labour, but I want to make one or two observations to my right hon. Friend concerning the application of this policy. Why is it that permission' to apply this policy is so readily given from London without substantial facts being produced as to the necessity for it? The latest Colony in which this policy has been operated is Northern Nigeria. Why? There is a great surplus of labour there. Would it not be possible for the Colonial Office, in such a case, to say to the Colony, "Why are you not able to recruit that labour? Have you made absolutely certain that there are reasonable conditions in the industries concerned

and that they are sufficiently attractive to the labour that is available?" Why is it that permission is given without the most stringent safeguards being made in respect of the new labour to be caught up in the industries concerned? Why, in Northern Nigeria, are there no labour inspectors? All that is done is to send up an administrative officer who, probably as part of his other duties, looks after the new situation created in the tin mines. Are the Minimum Wage Regulations being operated or is it simply said, as the Under-Secretary said in reply to a Question the other day, "Yes, we will see that local wage rates are operated"? I suggest that that is not good enough. To what degree is the Minimum Wage Convention, to which we are a party, being operated? How far-reaching is this minimum wage legislation? Those are some of the questions to which I would like to receive an answer.
I said the other day, in a Supplementary Question, that there was reason to doubt whether, under the Forced Labour Convention, the policy of the Government could be justified. I am supported in my view by so distinguished an authority as Lord Lugard, who said that he was at the Permanent Mandates Commission when the Forced Labour Convention was being made and his recollection was that when they thought of exclusions, they were thinking of exclusions in respect of war, but they had not in mind that the exclusion would cover working for private profit. That is precisely the position now—that we are engaged in industrial conscription in private employment out of which a profit can be made. Moreover, as far as Northern Nigeria is concerned, I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether any steps are being taken about the royalties that are being paid to the Nigerian company which has an interest in this matter. It gets at least half the royalties in respect of the exploitation of minerals. Is it going to surrender, in respect of the new wealth got out of Nigeria, its full share of royalties under some taxation legislation? Finally, what steps are being taken to safeguard the local native economy while the men are withdrawn? There are other questions which occur to me in regard to the Northern Nigerian situation. What are the terms and periods of employment? How long are these people to be away from their homes? We have not seen the


Regulations and we know nothing about the conditions; all we know is that somebody in Northern Nigeria put it to the Colonial Office that what had happened in Kenya should apply in the Northern Nigerian tin mines, and without saying what safeguards or conditions there should be permission was given. That sort of thing ought to stop. It has happened not only in Northern Nigeria, but it is now happening in Southern Rhodesia, and the Southern Rhodesian Government use the excuse that as the policy of forced labour is spreading in Africa they see no special reason why it should not be applicable in their own territory.
The third economic problem that I want to mention is the situation in the West Indies. I should like to know more about how the Government are facing the alarming situation that is developing economically in the West Indies. Before long the workers who have been employed on the American bases will be returning to their homes. In some places, as an hon. Friend reminds me, work is finishing now, and there will be a most grave unemployment situation. In certain Colonies there is already a very great problem of surplus population. Consequently, the economic situation will become very bad indeed. At the same time, the cost of living is rising. There are shipping difficulties. We have not mobilised the production of food to anything like a sufficient degree to meet the needs of this population of nearly 3,000,000, and so far as rice is concerned, although the Under-Secretary said that certain things had been done, I doubt if they are adequate to feed the populations of our own territories. I put it that we are face to face with a very grave situation which calls for the gravest attention from the Government at the present moment. It is quite true there has been an Anglo-American Commission, and presumably it has reported. The American Ambassador made a speech the other day about it. As far as I know, we have not had a report here. Presumably, there are steps to be taken in regard to the control of prices, to the rationing of goods, to increasing local production, organising shipping and the rest, but I am very apprehensive, and I would like to know more of the Government's economic policy in this respect.
Then there is the problem of social distress. We have had for the last two years the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. We were told the other day that no fewer than 83 schemes in a dozen categories had been endorsed, though the expenditure indicated by my right hon. Friend is not quite in harmony with other information given to this House a little while back. The figure of £800,000 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act was mentioned as against £250,000 in the return to 30th June. I am open to correction on the point.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would like to have these figures correct. Is the hon. Member giving the figure of money voted or that of money spent?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am giving the figures set out in the return.

Mr. Macmillan: I am accused, as I understand it, of having made a false return. The mistake I think the hon. Member is making is that one figure is the cost of schemes approved, and the other figure, which I gave the other day, is that of money actually spent. As the hon. Member will appreciate, there is a time lag between the two.

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon if I have made a mistake. I was under the impression that the return to 30th June was of moneys paid, which was a sum of £250,000, whereas in another place I have seen that, under the Act, public schemes amounted to £800,000. I found it difficult to reconcile the two figures. The point I desire to make to my right hon. Friend is that in this House we are very much at a loss in arriving at any real comprehension of the meaning of the figures so far given. When for instance the 83 schemes in the West Indies are broken up into a dozen categories we do not know the relation of these individual schemes to any broad policy of social and economic development. It is on that sort of thing we would like to be informed by a report, so that we could get a more intelligent and comprehensive view of how the Colonial Development and Welfare Act is working.
I appreciate that, fundamentally, all this talk about social development is economic but I put it to the House that


the resources of the Colonies are their own. We have acknowledged the paramountcy of their interests, yet on us falls the responsibility of rapidly creating the conditions under which the people can stand on their own feet, of associating them with other areas for economic and political needs, and of moving on to their de-colonisation both in status and in stature.
I should have liked time to have spoken about Colonial administration—the machine at the Colonial Office, and the general administrative machine in the Colonies. As regards the former, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Colonial Office might open its doors a little more widely to its own people when they visit London from their posts overseas? There is room for a little more consultation. Sometimes Departments might call for reports, might get the "low down" from some of the junior officials who have been engaged in Colonial administration. Sometimes the Colonial Office might give them a warmer welcome for their views and ideas, than they have been accustomed to give up to now. The second point I make in regard to Colonial administration is this. I want to see more Africans and others brought into the administration of their own territories, but I would ask that the more imaginative, more go-ahead members of the European administrative staffs should have greater opportunities than are now permitted to them. We do not want a Colonial service made up of men who are continuously playing for safety. It would help sometimes if we could bring in on the secretariats some men who have had experience in the districts, out in the field, and who are facing problems in an imaginative and fresh way. I hope that that side of administrative work will not be disregarded.
I hope finally that my former request to the Colonial Secretary will be given some attention. If it is the aim of the Govern-men to work out its policy on the lines of past declarations, I hope we may be informed what these declarations are, and that we may get a White Paper on them. I hope also that a greater interest in Colonial problems will be engendered in this House by the creation of some suitable machinery for considering Colonial policy. The time is long overdue for some

joint Parliamentary Committee for this purpose. I hope that in this House, with our great responsibilities, going forward as we are into a new world where increasing demands will be made on us, may have the facilities, the machinery and the opportunity of dealing with Colonial problems with understanding. Nothing can contribute more to that end than the creation of proper Parliamentary machinery.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I am certain that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) for having raised, a variety of subjects dealing with the Colonial Empire. Although I cannot agree with him in all his contentions, I agree with him on one point. He mentioned that the American Ambassador, in a recent speech, had referred to the fact that nothing had so divided the two English-speaking peoples as the conception—and I think the wrong conception—which other people have had of our Colonial Empire. I could not help thinking of an interesting article in "The Times" on Colonial problems recently, in which the writer said that had any one of us here visited the Malay States before the war, we should have found excellent drainage, excellent roads, and excellent hospitals, but had we asked any inhabitant for what purpose the British Commonwealth of Nations existed, we should have met raised eyebrows and awkward silences. I cannot help feeling that all of us in this House bear a portion of blame for this state of affairs. In past years, we have only devoted one day a Session to the discussion of problems of the Colonial Empire. Even to-day, when the subject is under review, the House is sparsely attended.
For what purpose does this British Commonwealth exist? I profoundly believe that it is one of the two great political discoveries of all time, the other being the Federal system of the United States of America. It falls into two parts: one consisting of the great independent self-governing Dominions, free, sovereign units, tied by loyalty to the Crown, and the second the Colonial Empire, the junior Ministers, so to speak, of the combination, which will one day enjoy the full, responsibilities of Cabinet rank. This Commonwealth, like all living organisms, must either develop or perish; it cannot stand still in its development. Unless we


realise this, the Commonwealth will recede in the public estimation. Each member of the Commonwealth cannot stand alone by itself. Look at this Island of 42,000,000, about the same size as the State of New York: its basis the coal, iron and steel industries, but unless we have markets, its shipping and its manufactures cannot survive. Look at the Dominion of Canada, with 11,500,000 people, mainly grouped along the 49th parallel, a fringe of industry round the Great Lakes; wheat at Winnipeg; fruit at Vancouver; the rest of the country forest, lake and river—economically, only an appendage of the United States. Take Australia, a great Continent, with the population of the City of London, depending upon exports of wool to Japan and this country; New Zealand, existing on agricultural exports to Britain; South Africa, a pastoral country mainly dependent on one great export, gold. Separately, we cannot hope to play a part, either economically or politically, in the postwar world, but, united, I believe that we can play a great part in one of the great political experiments of history. That is why I should like to see the Dominions playing a greater part in the development of our Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire. After the war I should like to see, perhaps, a Canadian Viceroy of India; a South African High Commissioner of Palestine; an Australian Governor of Nigeria, a New Zealand Governor of Kenya, and, throughout the Colonial Empire, civil servants from all the great self-governing Dominions, setting a standard of integrity and good administration.
To obtain this state of affairs, we must revise our propaganda about the Colonial Empire. In the past, there have been two pictures, engendered largely by the cinema and the novel, in the minds of most people about the Colonial Empire. The first I would call, for lack of a better definition, the "Somerset Maugham" picture. If you go to one of those Colonies, you expect to find the European Club, with rows of fat men sprawling in deck chairs drinking countless whiskies and sodas. The other picture is the "white man's burden" picture, of the lonely white man in a thatched hut in darkest Africa, racked with fever, and taking, with a shaky hand, endless bottles of quinine. Those are not true pictures.

I would like after the war for anyone going into a school in this country or in the Dominions to see there a good text book setting forth the facts of the geography and history of the Colonial Empire. At present, the only source of information I know of is the admirable Whitaker's Directory. Once we grasp the possibilities of the Colonial Empire, we can develop them. After the War, under the principles of the Atlantic Charter, we shall see free access to raw materials for all nations, and presumably low tariff groups. These measures should help trade. We should find ample markets for the sugar of the West Indies, for the cocoa, the hides and ground nuts of the African Colonies, and for the mineral resources of Rhodesia in a better organised post-war world.
Here is a new field for financial investment. This war has brought about the liquidation of our foreign investments. Here is a new and more profitable field for them. To bring about the development of these countries we should first concentrate on communications. I was struck by a remark made by T. V. Soong, the Chinese Finance Minister, when he came over here, at the time of the Economic Conference. He was pleading for money to develop communications in China. He said, "Do you realise that had it not been for the railroad, the United States of America would have fallen apart?" Indeed, it is a strange reflection that perhaps the train did as much for the unity of America as Lincoln did. We must develop communications, not only rail and road, but, above all, air communications. Perhaps some hon. Members have read passages from that remarkable book by Major Seversky, the great American air expert, called "Victory through Air Power." He says that the imports of food into this country average about 25,000 tons a day, and that it would be possible to construct 500 planes on the B.19 model, each carrying 50 tons of cargo, and able to supply Britain with food if her sea communications were ever cut. It would be possible to cook food in the morning in New York and deliver it steaming hot to hungry millions in this country on the same day. It would be a fine thing if any hon. Members here were able, after the war, to travel to our Colonies, and there to see great transport-planes leaving the run-


ways, carrying cocoa, hides, skins and nuts to every part of the Commonwealth and the world. I will end with those much quoted words of Cecil Rhodes:
So little done, so much to do.
There is so much to do in our Colonial Empire if we only have the imagination and the energy to grasp the fact.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Kerr) has again recommended to this House that, among many other things, as part of our post-war reconstruction policy, the electorate of Great Britain should indulge in investments in our Colonies. I hope later that when I again describe, as I have done before, an example of a Colonial development used for the exploitation of one island of the West Indies, he will see the difficulty facing this House when such a recommendation is put before it. I have often been asked by ray friends why, in Colonial Debates, I concentrate upon the West Indies. I concentrate upon the West Indies because, in my view and from my experience, the West Indies offer a microcosm of the variety of conditions existing in all our Colonies spread throughout the world. There you can have conditions which are analogous to those existing in African Colonies, Eastern Pacific Colonies, Mediterranean Colonies and elsewhere. I hope that my concentration upon the West Indies will not be regarded as being only concerned with one particular set of Colonies. It is because I regard them as a test case of what is possible in the development of the Colonial Empire. In the West Indies, as in many other of the Colonies, there are found vicious spirals of neglected food supply, extensive disease and poor medical services, destitution, poor wages, divorce from the land, fecundity and increasing population, high illegitimacy rate, juvenile delinquency, minimum welfare, poor educational standards and facilities, and poverty, all reforms ameliorating these conditions having been practically neglected except within the last few years.
At the present moment the policy of the Colonial Office is really to shelter under an umbrella of welfare. Welfare is not enough. You must have a new aspect in looking at Colonial affairs, starting from the ideal of parenthood, on to trusteeship, on to protection, on to the gradual civic development of the coloured population

until they are able to stand on their own feet. That is the policy that should be adopted by the Colonial Office, and, frankly, up to the present I see no glimmer of it.
In the West Indies we have a series of islands with different situations, with the same economic and social conditions existing in the main, but there are differences in each island. In one the crop is different, the accent is different, and the outlook is different, with the same conditions existing. You have very different circumstances existing. In Barbados, allegedly the most English of Colonies, there is a constitution which is 300 years old and has not been changed yet, and Trinidad, the richest Colony, has a constitution inferior to that of the Bahamas. You have a series of political constitutions in the various islands. Even in local government you are practically making no attempt to train the coloured local people—as the English and European steeped in the British tradition—in the development of real citizenship. What has the Colonial Office done for the problem of juvenile delinquency in the West Indies? I remember bringing home a sick member of the Royal Commission, and he told me that in St. Lucia, when he asked about the problem of juvenile delinquency, he was assured by the commissioner of police there that there were no vagrant boys. But he himself found vagrant boys of tender age sleeping outside the doors of houses. When I was in St. Lucia and St. Vincent I found that Admiralty and War Office houses and buildings, instead of being used as hostels for these boys and for such people, had been converted into fiats in which comparatively well-to-do officials had their own dwellings in very congenial surroundings rather than that these poor boys should be allowed to have this accommodation.
The problems of the West Indies on which the Colonial Office should concentrate are mainly four. There should be federation of the Civil Service throughout the islands instead of the disjointed service which now exists. The medical services and the ordinary administrative services, instead of being regarded as closed pigeon-holes in which local aspirants cannot move from one island to another, and, as far as Barbados is concerned, not even from one parish to another, should be open for the transfer not only of the European officials,


who move like birds of passage in the promotion career from one island to another, but for local aspirants who want to improve themselves and get on.
You should train the local people for the responsibility of local Government and then gradually allow them to fill posts in the Civil Service, moving them on to various islands. Even now there is in the West Indies grave racial discrimination. The Germans are well known as imitators or mimics. We know now that the Hitler policy was a policy of no internal class war in Germany, but in substitution for that there is the racial war outside with the object of showing Germany as the supreme race enslaving others. I sometimes wonder, looking back over the last 300 or 400 years of our Colonial Empire, whether that charge cannot to some extent be substantiated against our Colonial administration. What have we done for the women of the West Indies? It is known that the Nazi policy with regard to women is church, children and cooking. What have we done to elevate the status of the female population in the West Indies? I hope that when the right hon. Member replies he will tell us what has been done. Are they educated? Have they any economic status? Is there one woman on any of the executive councils in the West Indies? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that throughout the West Indies, in the native circles or among the coloured population, there is not a woman who could be nominated as a councillor on the executive bodies? Does he realise that some years ago in the Leeward Islands there was not a nominated coloured person on the executive or legislative councils?
Education is a great need in the West Indies, both primary and secondary. There is no scheme for adult education. As to the development of religion, you have the picture of all denominations doing excellent and indeed marvellous work but hampered and pincered by the grave economic and social conditions against which they can make practically no headway. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what the illegitimacy birthrate means in the island of Barbados, the island which is advertised in the tourist brochures as a tropical paradise? For the last two decades the illegitimacy birth-rate in that island has shown maternity to be practically regarded as an industry be-

cause of the benefit from alimony. Does he know that the illegitimacy birth-rate, which used to range from 80 per cent., is down to 59 per cent.? The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that that is something which the Colonial Office cannot help. I submit that, if the Colonial Office raised the economic status of these women, gave them a good education, an improved social status and did something to help them by means of decent welfare schemes, and especially if they gave them political power instead of leaving them voteless, they would soon see a change in the economic conditions of these women.
As regards co-operation, no consideration is being given to the development of co-operative societies in the West Indies as you have them in China and India and other Colonies for the development of cultural aspects in agricultural societies and things of that kind. So far as I have read, nothing of that kind has been planned yet. Then there is the problem of federation, which should be tackled as soon as possible. It is perfectly ridiculous that there should be these isolated units, each fighting one another, with different policies, customs and bars, instead of being regarded as a complete unit. As a Noble Lord said in another place, the tendency should be to have big amalgamated Colonies with Governor-Generals casting a really panoramic and widespread eye over the Colonies as a whole. There should be a policy against racial discrimination, I do not know if Members realise that there was a vacancy for a judgeship in Jamaica, where there was a coloured man of considerable experience, exceptional calibre and unimpeachable character who had had magisterial experience in that Colony for over 14 years. He held the acting Judicial Appointment. I do not know whether he applied for the job or not, but at any rate he did not get it. A European from Mauritius secured the position. When examples of that kind can be quoted and the whisper of how the Government are treating their best men goes through the West Indies, you can imagine the sort of feeling of animosity that exists there.
I will give another example. Recently the Director of Medical Services was promoted from Trinidad to Mauritius. I know that chief medical officer, because he happened to be a fellow student with my brother at Glasgow University, five


years after my time. In the Colony of Trinidad there is, as medical officer of health to the chief town, one of the products of the island, a scholarship winner, who is as fully qualified as any medical man in Great Britain from the point of view of qualifications. That man is doing fine work as medical officer at Port of Spain, but I am prepared to wager that his chances of being appointed Director of Medical Services are practically nil, because that post will be reserved, as it always has been in the past, for a European. This policy of racial discrimination should be stopped. I know it has been ameliorated and modified somewhat, but I want these men to know that appointments will be made on merit, and merit alone, irrespective of colour and race. That is the only way in which you can encourage men to produce and do good work.
Now I come to the question of financial exploitation. Let me repeat to this House, because it bears repetition, the case of the St. Kitts sugar factory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members can groan if they like, but the people of St. Kitts and the labourers there are groaning, too. The hon. Member for Oldham said that we should put our money into investments of that kind. Well, these are the people who, as I said last time, are getting from 800 to 1,100 per cent. out of an island in which the wages of labourers are 1s. per day. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister was very kind to me the last time I spoke. He was very generous, indeed, about my effort, and I appreciated it very much. Perhaps he would allow me to congratulate him on the way he has so far done his work in his office. He is showing an interest in, and giving a stimulus to. Colonial affairs, as was shown especially by his last broadcast. It was a real pleasure to hear him on the wireless. But this company—and there are many similar companies—is a useless parasite. It has a real cuckoo policy of exploiting the native races for the benefit of the city financiers in London. In this company, there was an original loan of £130,000, less 10 per cent., and the right hon. Gentleman took me to task because he said I did not understand the difference between loan capital and real capital. But I am not quite so simple as that—a Simplicissimus Minor—because his friends who sit beside

him will agree with me that loan capital is perfectly fictitious. He will note I said "Simplicissimus Minor"—the Major probably being in the Colonial Office. Debentures are not really capital; they are borrowed money to aid the business, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, in saying what he did, did not treat me as he usually does. For borrowed capital of £130,000 up to date of redemption this company has had returned to it 5 per cent. interest per annum. They have had the debentures, borrowed for the railway in the island, returned, plus 6 per cent., free of British Income Tax. They have been entitled to half the assets of the sugar factory company and over a series of more than 25 years they have obtained, as I have said, from 100 to 1,100 per cent. per annum. Is that the sort of thing in which to ask the British public to invest? The people of St. Kitts, having practically no vote, are helpless. That sort of financial exploitation should be stopped by the Colonial Office.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I was not advocating financial exploitation. I was trying to make the point that the Colonial Empire could not develop unless capital came to it.

Dr. Morgan: That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that he thought part of our post-war Colonial policy should be that the British public should be encouraged to invest. The word "investment" has a distinct meaning; it means investment, of private capital into Colonial business without any restrictions whatever from the Colonial Office. It is done every day. You are doing it in Nigeria, Rhodesia, and now in the West Indies. Other sugar companies have been formed. Ask the directors of this company what they are doing. They are having companies run in the West Indies. In a sugar factory in Antigua the Government put in £15,000, and so can keep an eye on it, but that is not the case in St. Kitts. These thirsty individuals who pose on the West Indies Committee as great welfare helpers of the West Indies are parasites, sucking the blood of the Colony and taking it to the city while the poor people are left there. When I left after my visit to this sugar factory—and a very efficient and well-run factory it is, I must give them credit for that—by permission of one of the officials I visited the lazaretto in St. Kitts.


From a prosperous business I went to a poor leper institution, where I saw patients without arms, without legs, or with disfigured faces. I took off my hat in response to a bow from a poor woman leper. And I heard her pathetic cry as I moved off. "Oh God," she said, "he, the visitor, took off his hat to me—to me, the poor miserable, ugly, forgotten creature." And I saw these people looking at me plaintively, knowing, as they intuitively recognised, that leprosy, though a microbic disease, was due to the social conditions which existed. My medical friends may object to that, and say that like tuberculosis leprosy is a microbic disease. But we know that tuberculosis is a poverty disease in this country, and so leprosy throughout the world though caused by a microbe, is due to the social conditions existing. So I want the right hon. Gentleman to recast his financial policy with regard to the West Indies, and I want him to do it under the Colonial Development Board, so that there will be definite restrictions on companies of that kind.
I have taken up the time of the House, and I do not propose to say very much more. The way in which problems are handled in the West Indies seems to result from mal-administration. Let me take very briefly the problem of praedial larceny, that is, the thieving of crops by poor labourers from various estates. At one time the estate proprietors made a terrible hullabaloo about this problem. After the Trinidad rioting an English Commission was sent out from here. After considering praedial larceny, this Commission recommended the "cat"—the lash—for the second offence. I was keenly interested in this problem, and I did not see why these poor people should be lashed for stealing a banana or a plantain, or an orange or a grapefruit from a tree. When I was in Trinidad I went into this problem thoroughly. I found that it was a minor problem which had been greatly exaggerated. I want to pay the right hon. Gentleman this tribute: I wrote to him and asked him a question recently about praedial larceny, and I have his letter in my pocket; it is a good letter, and excellent evidence of his interest. What do the Colonial Office now find out? They admit, after investigation through a series of excellent local committees which they have formed there, that this praedial larceny, this great

criminal offence, is only prevalent in a small part of the island and that only a very small minority of the population is involved. It is now being got under control in those localities through the local committees. That is an example of a problem being deliberately exaggerated by interested planters, in order to pretend that the people are not worth talking about and should therefore be kept on destitution wages all the time.
So it is with almost every other problem. I do not want to speak about the medical services, because I know so well that they are perfectly disgraceful. Wonderful work is being done by medical men, general practitioners of exceptional calibre, in the port medical work, by which they are keeping internationally infective diseases away from these Colonies. There is no plague, no typhus, no yellow fever, no smallpox. This work is being done by men who have had a chance to do some decent, honest work, and in spite of all the trans-oceanic traffic they have kept infection from their shores. But when it comes to internal conditions, over which the poor medical men have no control, preventive work is being kept at a minimum, and they are concerned merely with ameliorative treatment, for the relief of symptoms. The medical man cannot himself go draining swamps to prevent malaria, he cannot go digging latrines to prevent hookworm disease occurring, he cannot produce reservoirs for a good water supply to prevent typhoid. He is helpless, and these conditions, which result from the Colonial medical policy of the Government, are the problems which exist and which produce such a tragedy in the West Indies. The medical services themselves are perfectly disgraceful; there are no Whitley councils, great favouritism is shown, and the whole system needs reorganisation. Chief medical officerships are reserved for Europeans only, and there are many similar problems. I wish the Colonial Office would hurry up and do something. In the Colony of Trinidad, with a population of nearly 500,000, tuberculosis is rampant, as it is in Jamaica, yet there is no tuberculosis sanatorium. Cannot something be done to speed that matter up? The money has been subscribed partly by private subscriptions, and the Government have now to make a grant. Surely they can do that. I have the figures here of tuberculosis in Jamaica


compared with the figures for this country, and the Jamaica figures are very much higher than those for this country. So they are in some of the other Colonies. In cases like Trinidad, where the money has been partly subscribed privately, could not the Government hurry up?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Mr. Harold Macmillan indicated dissent.

Dr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but my information is that the money has been subscribed privately, to a considerable amount, for a tuberculosis sanatorium, and I understand that they are simply waiting for a Government subvention in order to carry out the work of building the sanatorium. Cannot that be done, cannot we relieve them even to the extent of giving them decent medical treatment and by concentrating mostly on preventive work so as to prevent disease?
I am very sorry to have detained the House so long. I always do, and I always apologise, but there is such a wide field to cover, and there is so much to say, that it is impossible to deal with it in a short time. It is because I feel that in the West Indies are concentrated all the problems which are scattered through-out the whole of the Colonial Empire that I think we should give an example to the world there of what could be done. In doing so, we should be adding to the lustre of British Colonial administration. One word more. The American Ambassador has given a hint that the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to nominate their own Governor. Has any machinery been devised, apart from the voting system, even by means of a plebiscite, to ask the people of the West Indies once during the last half-century to nominate even a black Governor for one of their Colonies, or anybody else who knows anything at all about it? Let the right hon. Gentleman revise his Colonial Advisory Committees, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has asked him to do, and see whether he cannot introduce a few democrats into those councils, which in the past have helped him a little to try to change conditions in that part of the Colonial Empire.

Colonel Ponsonby: I feel like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), that the ground is so wide that

it is difficult to cover. I will not, however, follow him, or the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr), who made such an eloquent speech. I should like to say a few words to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), who unfortunately has just left the Chamber. He seems to deal with the Colonial problem from two points of view. Firstly, he deals with the problem as an individual who is bearing the burden of disgruntled people all over the Empire—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be able to correct the view that it is necessary to send a telegram to the hon. Member for Shipley in order to get the dictums of the local governments reversed. Secondly, the hon. Member deals with matters in a general way, representing, I understand, the views of the Labour party. He would seem to seek to build up a state of society perhaps with trade unions, perhaps with co-operative societies, and perhaps with every appendage which he thinks best, quite regardless of the state of development and civilisation of the countries concerned. He wishes, as he says, these countries to move rapidly to political maturity. I hope he will realise that many of these people cannot run before they are able to walk, and that it is necessary to go slowly.

Mr. Sorensen: We have done that already.

Colonel Ponsonby: Perhaps 90 or even 98 per cent. of those for whom he professes to speak do not really understand the meaning of such words as a "feeling of frustration" and "political consciousness." These words occur again in the Labour Party Manifesto, an interesting document from which the hon. Member quoted in his last speech. It struck me that the Labour party were trying to impose on people in a different state of civilisation ideas and ideals for which many of them were completely unfitted. They hold out to them self-government as a guiding star, quite oblivious of the fact that, as the stars are at different distances from the earth, so are the peoples of our Empire at different distances from the possibility of self-government. Their civilisation ranges perhaps from 250 years to 1,000 years behind our own.
Ideals are the life-blood of the thinking individual, but the ladder leading to the ideals is composed of rungs of reality. I


wish for a few moments to deal with realities, namely, those of organisation. I am very pleased that we have as Under-Secretary a man who has been engaged for many years in business and, before coming to the Colonial Office, was at the Ministry of Supply. I feel that he attacks these problems in a new way. He has the great task of stimulating production and changing the lethargic habits of the past to meet the vital and immediate necessities of the war. I hope that he looks on all these questions from the point of view not only of developing the Empire in the best way for the immediate necessity, but for the best future of the countries themselves. In order to do this it is very important that the methods of organisation should be good and the administration smooth, I often wonder whether the Colonial Office might not take a few leaves out of the book of big businesses which have world-wide ramifications. If so, they would start by sectionalising the world, splitting it up, say, into the West Indies, the East Indies, East Africa, West Africa and possibly the Arab worlds. I was pleased to see the other day the Noble Lord hinted in another place that apparently this idea of the grouping of Colonies is now being favourably considered in the Colonial Office. So far as the lay-out of the personnel is concerned, here again it is possible to see what happens in big business. There you have the selection of personnel, their conditions of service, their place of employment and the powers you give them when they are overseas.
There is very little to say as regards selection, because I am sure that hon. Members who have had anything to do with the Colonies in the last few years will realise how vastly improved is the personnel of our Colonial officials overseas. The idea has been put forward, I think by Lord Trenchard, that, later on, it might be very valuable for our higher officials, who are to be governors and rulers, to pass through some sort of staff college, and to be given opportunities to travel and prepare themselves in every way for the great task they may be called upon to undertake. There is one matter I should like to mention as regards training, and that is in connection with the announcement made recently of the appointment to administrative jobs of native Africans in the Gold Coast. I think it would be most valuable if men who are

to be appointed for such jobs started their official life in some other part of the world. The hon. Member who has just spoken gave an instance of moving a judge from Jamaica to West Africa, or vice versa. I think that is all to the good. I certainly think that, for the first five years, it would be most valuable if a man's appointment were outside the country of his birth. As regards the conditions of service, as hon. Members who have studied the Colonial bluebooks are aware, a most complicated system of pensions exists. If a man has served in six different countries, he will be charged as regards his pension in the accounts of each of those countries until his death. It is a very complicated arrangement, and I hope the unification of the service to which Lord Moyne has referred is being seriously considered.
Then there is the question of the place of employment. Big businesses, such as banks, select their men and send them to definite parts of the world. They re-main there for a large portion of their time and learn the language, customs and characteristics of people. In the Colonial Service frequently towards the end of the careers of men who have been well trained, they are moved from pillar to post, and their valuable training is to a great extent wasted. I am sure we might alter this plan and look with favour upon the arrangements made by business. In the same way junior officials in Africa have frequently been moved from place to place, regardless of the fact that a District Commissioner is far more valuable if he knows the language and the characteristics and idiosyncrasies of the people, and incidentally the native himself pays far more attention to a man he knows or has heard about—and news of a good man travels very quickly—than to a total stranger who has to spend a year before he knows anything at all. These considerations, however, do not apply to technical and scientific officers, whose research work is perhaps more valuable if they are able to move from place to place.
As regards the powers of local officials, and especially, of course, senior officials, it is possible to lay down broad principles of policy, and it should be possible with those principles laid down to allow local officials, namely. Governors, Chief Secretaries or whoever it may be, to settle matters of detail without reference home. "Yes" men are no good. You want men of initiative. Long ago, in the days of


Lord Salisbury, the grandfather of the present Secretary of State, a young official who happened to be left in charge telegraphed to England saying that a revolt had broken out but that he could deal with it if he was given a free hand. Lord Salisbury telegraphed back, "Do what you want, but do not undertake more than you can carry through." That is the spirit that we want now. We now have the cable, the air mail letter and the aeroplane, but we do want the Colonial Office, with a certain amount of self-denial, to give power to local officers to settle affairs. We hope also that in the future Whitehall will make use of local experience in order to reinforce their work here. I believe it is being done to some extent, and I hope it will be done more in the future. I would not elaborate what I have said in the past but call upon the Colonial Office to adjust themselves every day and every hour to the needs of this changing and hurrying world.
Then we come to the relations of the Colonial Office and Parliament. The first desideratum is continuity of policy. How is it possible to have continuity of policy with frequent changes of Ministers, and in some cases changes of parties? This sentence appeared in "The Times" a short time ago:
Lack of imagination has too often permitted British statesmen to appeal to Colonial peoples in phrases which win applause at Westminster but seem hopelessly unreal to those used to utterly different conditions of life and ways of thought.
If hon. Members would put themselves in the position of, we will say, chiefs in Tanganyika who have been given orders to carry out one policy and then, owing to a change of parties in this country, are suddenly given orders to do something quite different, they can quite realise what confusion ensues, and they will realise how the black man very often considers that the white man is mad. What they want is decision, and they cannot understand the consequences of political changes thousands of miles away. In order to obtain continuity it may be that something could be done on the lines of the Colonial Development Board, which was suggested in the last Debate. I would ask the Under-Secretary to consider this matter very seriously and to remember that continuity of policy is absolutely essential if the business of administration is to run smoothly.
With regard to our attitude towards our people overseas, questions are often asked in Parliament which are inspired by perfectly good motives but of which the implication overseas is not realised at all. It is vital that questions should not be asked which are going to create trouble, doubt, and very often derision. I do not know whether it is possible to suggest that the Under-Secretary might consider some form of informal committee of the House which might meet him periodically and discuss a number of these matters quietly and frankly. It is very often done in business and even in some Departments of the Government, and nothing but good results. Lastly, I would plead for an improvement in our knowledge of the Colonies. It is through lack of knowledge that misunderstanding and wrong ideas have been put about here and in the United States, which have done us a great deal of harm. Very few people realise the great work that has been done. There are great opportunities to teach the public here. I was very glad to see that the Secretary of State has been discussing the question with the Board of Education and that there is a possibility of additional books on the Colonies being prepared for the children of the country. A deliberate policy of propaganda about the Colonies would be greatly appreciated by the people of this country who are only too anxious to learn. We have a wonderful story to tell and I hope that we shall tell it and be proud of it.

Mr. John Dugdale: I would like to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. H. Kerr). I was interested in his suggestion that the Dominions should play a greater part in Colonial Government. I think that a suggestion bearing on that was made by the Dominions Secretary at one time in another place. It was that it might be advisable to form a Government, with a full Parliament of House of Commons and House of Lords, in such a place as Cape Town. I would like to throw out the suggestion that it might be possible to establish the Colonial Office in Canberra at some future date. The Australian and New Zealand people will have something to say about this in the future when they remember what happened at Singapore, in Borneo and in other places near to them where Governments in which they had no say proved


not to have had as firm a foundation as they might have hoped.
I want to refer more particularly to-day however to the question of the mobilisation of Colonial man-power in the Forces. I have tried for some time to secure some figures about this. I asked the Under-Secretary at one time, but I gathered that it was not considered to be in the interests of public security that any detailed figures should be given. I can understand that it may not be advisable to give too many figures, but there are certain well-known figures about which I would like to say a word. I will say nothing about the mobilisation of man-power in Palestine as I understand that that is to be dealt with at a later date. I will refer first to its mobilisation in Africa. On the Gold Coast and in Nigeria there is a population of 25,000,000 to 30,000,000. As far as I can ascertain, there is one Colonial regiment with possibly 8,000 or 10,000 men at the most, and I should think the figure is considerably less. Is that a figure of which we can be proud? In East Africa there is, I understand, one regiment. It is doing admirable work, but there is only one regiment. In the West Indies, where there is a population of 2,500,000 there is, again, only one regiment. I will not press the Under-Secretary for the actual figure in each regiment, but I do not think it can be more than a few thousands. In the last war the West Indies, or it may be Jamaica, alone contributed 150,000 men to the Forces. Why can they not do so to-day? I can see nothing to prevent them. In our own country there are, I suppose, including the Home Guard and every branch of the Armed Forces, some 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 people serving. That is, roughly, 10 per cent. of our population. What a different picture from that which I have given of the development of man-power in our Colonies.
What is the reason for this? In April this year a meeting took place in New York at which Paul Robeson and other prominent people were present. To this meeting the Lord Privy Seal sent a message saying that the difficulty in recruiting people to the Armed Forces in the Colonies was the difficulty of finding equipment and materials to arm even the men who were available and that it would be impossible to have a larger force. In other words, there was a shortage of

equipment. Let us compare this with a statement made, I think, by the Minister of Labour not long ago, that the creation of the Home Guard shortly after Dunkirk was a gigantic piece of bluff. The Home Guard was created at a time when there was very little equipment in this country. It was built up and men were trained without equipment. When the equipment became available, we had an admirable force capable of doing valuable work in the defence of this country, I would ask that the same thing be done in the Colonies. If there is a shortage of equipment let the men be trained before the equipment comes to them. When the equipment arrives they will be able to use it.
What are the reasons that prevent action being taken? As far as I can see, there are only two. The first is that the Colonial people themselves might be unwilling to join the Forces. I gather from meetings such as that at New York to which I have referred that this unwillingness does not exist. If the Under-Secretary says it does exist, I can only say that it is most unfortunate that there should be unwillingness among people of our Colonial Empire to help in its defence. I do not think that is the reason. I think the reason is that either the Colonial Office or the War Office do not wish to recruit these men. They do not want to face the difficulties in administration that may be involved. I can well imagine one Department—not the right hon Gentleman's Department, but the War Office—saying they could not be bothered. I can imagine on the question of discipline the A branch of the War Office making great objections, I can imagine, on the question of weapon training, the G department being concerned whether this could be arranged and whether there were, for instance, enough British officers to do the training. I can imagine the question of feeding causing grave concern to the catering department of the War Office. I can imagine the Colonial Office raising objections and saying, for instance, that there were not properly built places for men in training, not enough barracks or enough equipment. I fear that there might be people in some of the Colonies who would raise objections on social grounds and who would say that it might possibly create a certain amount of difficulty if too many in the Colonies were through their association with the Armed Forces to get a


wider view of their powers and position than they have previously had.
That brings me to the question of promotion within the Forces that do exist. I would like the Under-Secretary to state how many coloured soldiers have received commissioned or even non-commissioned rank. I understand that the number in the West African Regiment is very small and that it is also small, if there are any at all, in the West Indian Regiment. I hope that he will disillusion me and will be able to say that there are a large number of commissioned and non-commissioned ranks in both of these regiments and in the East African Regiment as well. I have, however, grave doubts on this matter. We have in our Colonial Empire some magnificent fighting material. This material, as far as I can understand, is crying out to be used. Its anxiety to serve should be an inspiration to us, but it does not seem to inspire the Colonial Office. Are these men, in their millions, to be condemned to idleness? Are they to wait, as the people of Malaya and Singapore waited, until the enemy are at their gates before being mobilised? I hope that will not be so. I hope they will be trained and mobilised fully before the time comes for them to be used, if it ever does come. I would in conclusion ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remember what did happen in Malaya and at Singapore, and to see that that cannot happen in the West Indies or in East or West Africa; to see in fact that we have a force capable of defending those countries made up of the people of those countries and that that force is ready.

Captain Gammans: It may be some considerable time before we have the opportunity of discussing Colonial affairs again, and so I hope the House, or what remains of it, will bear with me if I do not confine my remarks either to the interesting matter which has just been raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) or the original question with which the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) opened the Debate. We have had a slashing attack on British Colonial policy and on our British Colonial record generally by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). I am afraid that I cannot follow him very far in the picture which he has drawn of our Colonial Empire. To him it is a story chiefly of exploitation, even of

oppression, or at best neglect. To me, in spite of the many mistakes we have made, and I hope to refer to one or two in a moment, it is rather a story of solid achievement of which we have every reason to be proud. To-day our Colonial Empire is being attacked in many directions, both at home and abroad, and I feel it is a time for us to make a spirited defence of what we have done and what we hope to do in the future.
In the Debate a few weeks ago hon. Members opposite spoke about "restoring liberty" to our Colonial peoples. So far as I am aware, we have not taken away anybody's liberty in any part of the world. What is to-day our Colonial Empire was, before we went there, either uninhabited territory or else a civilisation, if it can be called a civilisation where little flourished except anarchy, oppression, slavery and in some cases even cannabalism. I spent many years in Kuala Lumpur, in the Federated Malay States, one of the most beautiful cities in Asia, with a standard of living which was the envy of all surrounding countries, where you had a male population which was 100 per cent. literate. Fifty years ago Kuala Lumpur was a small Chinese mining village where rival gangs of Chinese were paying a dollar each for each other's heads, where there was debt slavery in its most hideous form, with the Malay smallholders literally shut up in cages. When people talk about restoring liberty, is that the sort of liberty they want to restore? The fact is that if we were to walk out of our Colonial Empire to-day, as some people apparently suggest we should, the conditions which I have described would return, or else those countries would pass under the domination of another Colonial Power like Japan, whose Colonial record of dope and pillage and of oppression and brothels I have seen for myself in Korea and Manchukuo. Surely one of the most pathetic things which has been said in the world to-day, in an age when the talking of arrant nonsense has reached a high pitch, is the remark of Gandhi that if we were to walk out of India there would be no inducement for the Japanese to attack it.
I do not quarrel in any way with the desire of some of my hon. Friends opposite that our Colonial peoples should enjoy the highest possible standard of prosperity or that they should attain responsibility for their own affairs. I am


even prepared to go a long way with them in some of their criticisms of our failures in the past, referring more perhaps to what we have not done than to what we have done. But I sometimes feel that they are over-simplifying this vast problem of many races, many religions and great divergencies in economic background and in history. We must get out of our heads the idea that we can solve most of the problems of the world, and of our Colonial Empire in particular, by doling out copies of the British Constitution. There are very few parts of the Empire to-day where democracy is likely to work. I say that with regret, because I believe in democracy. I think it is the best form of constitution which has yet been devised for human beings, but you cannot confer it on people. Certain conditions must exist before it can possibly work. We have seen in India how, with the attainment of self-government, communal tension and communal hatred have increased year by year, and the same thing will occur in Malaya, Ceylon or in any other part of the Empire where there is divergence of races. I sometimes think that perhaps one of the most important things that we of this generation have to do is to apply our undoubted political genius to devising a form of Constitution which is suited to the Colonial Empire, which will give Colonies true self-government and at the same time is likely to work.
This war has, I think, taught the world many lessons, and in particular that independence without security is a meaningless term. It is not sufficient to have a brave people and a large army in order to feel secure. There must be industrial potential behind. In other words, in the post-war world to which we are all looking forward only three great Powers, the United States, Russia and ourselves, are likely to be capable of waging modern war at all. Surely that fact cannot fail to affect our ideas of trusteeship and our whole Colonial policy, because it means that countries like Nigeria, Ceylon and others can only have any political or economic future at all in so far as they are allied with some great Power.
A few weeks ago this House listened to a masterly review of the Colonial Empire by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and if he will allow me to do so I should like to add my congratulations

to the many which he has already received. There are, however, three points to which I would like to refer. The first has already been mentioned by an hon. Friend who was sitting in front of me. I should be glad to know, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us at the end of the Debate, what he proposes to do to explain our Colonial policy not only to our own people, but also to the world at large, especially to the United States. I have spoken in the United States on several occasions on British Colonial matters, and everywhere I found a keen interest in the subject but almost complete ignorance. As several hon. Members have told us, the American Ambassador in London made a remark only last week which filled me with alarm. He said there was no subject on which there was greater divergence of viewpoint than British Colonial policy. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House some assurance that a really active policy is being pursued to tell the world what we have done and what we propose to do. That is not propaganda; it is a plain statement of fact. We hope that the United States will co-operate with us in Colonial development after the war, but that co-operation will not be of very much value unless it is based on knowledge.
The second point upon which I would like to put a question to my right hon. Friend—and to which I was hoping he would refer more in his speech the other day—is in regard to the British community in Malaya. There never was a more disgraceful campaign than that which followed the Japanese invasion of Malaya and the final surrender of Singapore. Singapore is the greatest military disaster in our history, but it was a military and not a civil disaster. Singapore was lost not in the Malayan Peninsula but, if anywhere, it was lost here in London. In the past few weeks I have had the distressing experience of meeting many of the wives of civilians who have been left behind in Singapore. It is terrible to see members of your own race in the role of refugees. These women have lost everything—their homes, their possessions and their husbands. I have spoken to many of them. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that the European community in Malaya behaved otherwise than as we should expect them to behave.
The male population was mobilised to a man, up to the age of 60. The greater part of the younger men were already in the volunteers. The women were all doing hospital work, A.R.P. or Civil Defence of some sort. All this talk about whiskey-swilling planters and "blimp" civil servants is among the most disgraceful calumnies that I have ever heard. I was glad to see that in the case of Burma, the Governor told the world that out of a population of 14,000,000 people only about 4,000, and those mostly the criminal element, were disloyal. From all I can gather from Malaya, everybody did his best—all races, both sexes and all ages. I have not heard of a single case of deliberate sabotage or fifth columnism.
A good deal has been made of the remark that the civilian population stood aside from the struggle. What did we expect them to do? They were unarmed because we had deliberately not instructed them to arms. Surely one of the outstanding lessons of this war is that no civilian population, however brave, can stand out against mechanised warfare. How long did Holland hold out against the Panzer divisions? About three days. But has anyone ever accused the Dutchman of lack of courage? Has anybody alleged that the Dutch Government had no roots in the population? Surely that is the outstanding lesson of Holland, Yugoslavia, Crete and other places. In the small space of 50 years that small British community which we so glibly condemn to-day transformed Malaya from a worthless jungle into the richest Colony under the British flag. They have contributed more than £50,000,000 during the past 20 years to Imperial defence, also a battleship of the line and two bomber squadrons which are operating in this country and, when this country was being blitzed, they donated £500,000 to the Lord Mayor's Fund for London. During the first two years of the war it was the sale of Malayan rubber and tin to the United States that provided us with the resources which we so sadly needed in those days. Surely the least we can do when that community is passing through its time of trial and agony is to keep quiet, if we cannot say anything pleasant. If there has been any letting down it is not they who have let us down but rather we who have let them down.
I should like to raise one other matter. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would say something about it in the comprehensive review which he gave us. It is war damage. I do not know whether he realises that when the war is over and the Japanese are finally cleared out of Malaya, a lot of people will be lining up on the doorstep of the Colonial Office asking for claims to be met, because they have blown up their tin dredges or destroyed their rubber factories at the direct orders of the Government. They will expect somebody to pay for that. In case somebody may say that that is money going to the City of London, it would be as well to remember that more than 50 per cent. of the rubber produced in Malaya came from Asiatic holdings and over 40 per cent. of the tin. I do not know where the money is to come from, but I cannot imagine it can come from the pockets of the British taxpayer. I wonder whether the Colonial Office have considered the advisability of some Empire-wide scheme of war insurance. Just as in this country you may, if you have a house in Wales which is not likely to be bombed, be asked to help to bear the risk on a house in the East End of London which has been bombed, so it may be possible—I put it no higher than that—by some comparatively small tax on raw materials over the whole Empire, to build up a fund, out of which people can re-erect their smoke houses and their broken dredges after the war.
I would like to refer to one last point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I hoped he would say a little more about future policy. The surrender of Singapore marked the end of an epoch. Whether there will be a Colonial Empire when the war is over will depend, in the end, on what we do or fail to do in the next two years. I want to be frank in my criticisms of our Colonial policy. I have seen the Colonial Empire from the inside and from the outside. We have made mistakes and most of the mistakes which we have made in the past 20 years come from one very simple cause; it seemed as though the spirit of Empire had gone out of us. We ceased to believe that we had an Imperial mission at all, and, in the long run, you cannot expect others to believe in something if you do not believe in it yourselves. To get down to some practical points: At home here the average person knew little and cared


less about our Colonial possessions. He did not know what it had done and did not care, nor did he realise to what extent our overseas and Imperial trade enabled the people of these islands to maintain the highest standard of living in Europe. I would like to see Colonial history and economics taught much more thoroughly and comprehensively in our schools and I hope when this war is over we shall have the vision to create large numbers of free travelling scholarships for the boys and girls in our schools. I am in favour of the proposal which has been stressed several times since I have been a Member of this House, that a Colonial Parliamentary Committee should be created even while the war is on, so that more Members of the House can take an interest in Colonial affairs and know more of what is going on.
I am always hoping that someone will put up for us here in London—perhaps this may take tangible form after the war—a great Colonial House which is worthy of our Colonial Empire. A foreign visitor coming to London would never believe that we had a Colonial Empire at all. The Colonial representatives are poked away in back streets. I want to see a great building housing the Press and the local representatives, with a library, a hostel, a permanent exhibition, and so on.

Sir William Wayland: Has my hon. and gallant Friend forgotten the Royal Empire Society and the Colonial Institute?

Captain Gammans: I am a member of both, but I think the Royal Empire Society is not confined to the Colonial Empire—it also includes the Dominions. It has not, however, a permanent cinema, an exhibition. Press representatives, or many other of the things that I want to see in a great Colonial house. It is the equivalent of South Africa House, Canada House and India House that I want to see. Perhaps one might suggest that such a building would be an appropriate gift from the British Government after the war as a token of appreciation of what the Colonial Empire has done.
In the purely economic sphere I would like to see set up an Empire Development Council, for which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) pleaded so earnestly a month ago. If we are honest,

can we say that there has been, or is at this moment, a comprehensive plan of development of our Colonial Empire? In my experience there is not. There is no plan either within the Colony itself, or in the relation of one Colony to another, or in the relation of our Colonies to the world at large. I remember that some years ago a celebrated American came to stay with me when I was in Malaya, and he asked, "What is your policy of development?" I could only say simply that there was not one, and that if there was, I was quite unable to see it, and no one had ever told me what it was. If there were such a plan we should not have made some of the mistakes we have made. We should not have allowed unrestricted Chinese immigration into Malaya, where we have created a problem that is just as insoluble in its way as the problem of Palestine. We should not have allowed the whole economic system of a Colony to revolve round one crop, as we have in the case of cocoa in West Africa and sugar in the West Indies; we should have kept a better balance between subsistence production on which people live and the money crop, which is always at the mercy of world conditions over which they have no control.
I am wondering, too, whether we could not do something, even while the war is on, to set up an Empire Defence Council. There is nothing which gives a greater sense of common citizenship than the acceptance of common responsibilities for defence. Instead of, as it were, pushing our Colonial subjects aside and saying, "We will defend you"—which, in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong, at any rate, we signally failed to do—cannot we do more to make them feel it is their job as well as our own? Could we not have more encouragement of local recruiting, as was suggested by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and also more direct entry into the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army from our Colonial Empire? Two years ago I would have guaranteed to raise in British Malaya two complete squadrons of the Royal Air Force, completely manned from local personnel, from pilots down to riggers; there was that mass of excellent raw material which, for some reason or other, we could not use.
There is much I would like to say about the administration generally and about education, but time will not permit. One delicate subject, however, to which I feel


I must refer is colour prejudice. Nowadays there is not as much colour prejudice in the Colonial Empire as some hon. Members opposite think, but now and again there is some and my feeling is that where it exists it is the duty of the Colonial Office to stamp it out. If British citizenship means anything at all, there must be no colour bar at home or abroad. Let it not be thought that colour prejudice is confined only to the Colonial Empire. One finds it in London, where there are still hotels and restaurants that will not admit people from the Colonial Empire. A man is conscious of his political rights only at intervals, but he is conscious of his social rights every waking moment of his life. You can knock a man down and in time he will forgive you, but if you wound his pride he will hate you to the day of his death. It is for that reason that the whole colour question is so important politically. Perhaps there is one way in which all of us can help, and that would be to stop using the word "native." It is all very well to argue that "native" means a person who was born in a country; that may be so, but the sense in which the word "native" is used definitely means, in the minds of the people themselves, a certain social stigma.
In conclusion, I want to say that you can never found a great Commonwealth, such as we are trying to found, on economic and material things only Without bread a man does not live, but he cannot live on bread alone, and an Empire, if it is to have any permanence, must in the finality rest in the hearts and spirit of human beings. In other words, the British Commonwealth is an idea, and in the end it is ideas which count. It is the idea of common citizenship, under a common symbol, of men who differ in many, many things, who differ in race, colour, religion and history, but who are prepared to unite together for certain things. And the things which unite them are greater than the things which divide them. As "The Times" said in a recent article:
We have to add a sense of spiritual mission which alone provides an enduring stimulus to the human effort.
I think we have lost, in the past 20 years, that sense of mission, and if our Empire is to have any permanence, we have got to regain it. What we need perhaps more

than anything else is a sense of dynamic leadership, of a creed which will enthuse the people of these islands as much as it enthuses the people of the Colonial Empire. I fully believe that to-day, in our Colonial possessions, we are at the parting of the ways. One of two things must happen. The first is that the British Empire may gradually disintegrate and disappear, the most tragic example in the history of the human race of a people who were unworthy of their destiny, who were unmindful of the great responsibility which had been committed to their charge, because they lacked the inspiration, the leadership and the faith. That is one thing which may easily happen. The other alternative is that we may learn a lesson from our disappointments and our defeats, and realise that we have the power, if we have the will, to create something which will be a lasting benefit to those who live beneath our flag and to humanity at large.

Mr. David Adams: We are all very grateful to the Government for having arranged this Colonial Debate, particularly as it is so short a time since we were similarly favoured. I hope that this may be taken as a precedent, and that Colonial matters will receive greater attention in future than they have ever done in the past. It is true that at no period in the history of the country has there been a greater interest in Colonial matters. Whether that statement is true with regard to this House or not, the House itself must determine, but I must testify that if the repeated appeals which have been made to the Government for the setting-up of a Colonial Committee under the aegis, control and direction of members of all parties in the House were achieved, we would indeed be brought more directly into the position of being interested and concerned as a House upon whom the liability of much that is happening in the Colonial Empire really depends, and it would be possible materially to advance our sense of responsibilities. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has given us an admirable account of the present situation and of -the hopeful prospects for the future.
It is true that we are all grateful for, and I am particularly glad of this second opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State to repeat to us, no doubt in different language, some of those ambitions


which I believe he sincerely holds about the development in the future of our great Colonial Empire, with a population 50 per cent. greater than our own. It is true that up to quite recently our interest in Colonial matters was largely utilitarian; our own material interests were our first consideration, and I think it can be said with truth that the conditions of the populations of the Empire were a secondary concern. It may be true to say that the first dawning of our sense of responsibility came when the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald) was Colonial Secretary, when certain conditions were revealed to us that stimulated public interest, particularly in the West Indian Colonies. But I believe that the public indifference that then prevailed is passing rapidly away and that the material advancement of the native populations is now undoubtedly taking a large place in this House. We see it in the statements that have been submitted to show that in the fields of education, of health, of housing, and in the relief of extreme distress, there are evident and very specific departures.
There is, in my judgment, however, one field, that which is controlled and embraced by private enterprise, which has, relatively speaking, remained outside the ambit of reform. It is true that we have appointed labour advisers, and have set up labour advisory boards. Yet decisions in certain parts of the Colonial Empire of such boards as these have been overridden by the Colonial Governors, in my judgment highly improperly, and the Governor has awarded to the workers concerned lower rates of remuneration than the board itself has recommended, and perhaps amended conditions. The matter has been mentioned in Questions in the House that to-day Government employees are being defrauded, which I believe is the correct word to use, of their legitimate advances in wages in harmony with the officially stated rise in the cost of living since the war began. We have a specific illustration in one of our oldest Colonies, that of Jamaica, in which a rise of no less than 31 per cent. in the cost of living has received no response from the powers-that-be. In this country there is very little doubt that if such a situation as that were to prevail, it would be resisted by the withdrawal of their labour by the workers. But our Colonial coloured subjects have no such oppor-

tunity, and they would have rapidly been brought to book for daring to consider striking to-day. Even if trade union leaders were to make strong representations, these would be resisted by the Governors, and it might be that deportation would result. Certain it is that the trade union movement in parts of the Empire has, in my judgment, been seriously impeded by the imprisonment and long terms of deportation of trade union leaders. We hope that that may be remedied at no too distant date.
In my judgment also the Essential Work Defence Order is being used as an engine of oppression of the workers. When we reflect, taking the case of Sierra Leone, that if any workman is absent for two days in succession, or two days in the month, or is even late for employment, he is liable to prosecution and to punishment by imprisonment or by fine, it is a grievous story that there is an abundance of evidence that the new courts which have been set up under this Order are extremely busy in committing these natives to various degrees of punishment. This is highly improper, -in my judgment, under the Colonial Office. One must consider the conditions under which these natives are called upon to give their labour. We are told that in Sierra Leone many hundreds, probably thousands, have to rise before sunrise to catch the trains or other vehicles that they use for reaching their, employment, and that, after very arduous toil, they do not return home until hours after sunset. That means that most of the time in which they are capable of labouring is consumed in work. It is highly unjust that people should, under the Essential Work Order, be expected to work, under a broiling sun, in conditions to which many of them are unaccustomed, for periods—

Sir Patrick Hannon: Has my hon. Friend been to Sierra Leone, to examine on the spot the peculiar circumstances in which these people are employed? Does he realise that, generally speaking, they have easy access to their work? Does he also realise that many speeches made in this House have accentuated the difficulties of Sierra Leone?

Mr. Adams: I do not know how the hon. Member can suggest that I should not criticise conditions unless I have seen


them with my own eyes. Has he seen the conditions—

Sir P. Hannon: Yes, I have been there.

Mr. Adams: Has he seen the conditions prevailing in Russia to-day? Are we to disbelieve what is said in the public Press because we have not seen with our own eyes what is described? Then there are the Minimum Wage Ordinances, which have been sent by the Colonial Office to the different parts of the Colonial Empire, and which have not been put into force. Many of the Governors say that they prefer to rely on the power of trade unionism. You could not rely on trade unionism in this country to establish trade boards; so how can you expect trade unionism, in its very raw and limited condition, in the Colonial Empire to establish Minimum Wage Ordinances? But I think the position is being gradually accepted by the Colonial Office that there must be a new outlook if we are to make the most of the associations, produce, and so forth of the Colonial Empire. If our administration is based, as the Under-Secretary has advised us that it should be, on a spirit of friendship and, as I would add, on a spirit of equality, there is in the Colonial Empire, I believe, a vast untapped source of wealth, of loyalty, of human power and of culture almost for the asking, to which this nation and the Empire have hitherto turned a deaf ear, but which I believe the education of the general body of the community, and particularly of the Membership of this House, will bring at no distant date more actively into review.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would like to offer a few observations on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams). In the interpretation throughout our Colonial Empire of the various Orders issued from the Colonial Office, our Governors abroad, those responsible for the administration of our Colonial Empire, have given an immediate and sympathetic response. Those of us who have been throughout the Colonial Empire—and it has been my good fortune to visit most parts of the Colonial Empire—think that many speeches made in this House have a disturbing influence on the administration. We ought to be extremely careful in these difficult and embarrassing times not to

make speeches in this House which excite agitation in our Colonial Empire in relation to local administration. Take Sierra Leone, which was referred to by my hon. Friend. I was there at the beginning of 1939. There was considerable trouble with local labour. The Governor and those responsible for both branches of the Colonial administration—there are two parts of Sierra Leone: the Colony and the local administration at Freetown—were doing everything possible to meet, conciliate, and help the natives in the demands they made for better conditions. The Governor was doing everything possible to make things better and happier for the people, both in the Colony and in Freetown. Many speeches in this House have been responsible for trouble in the West Indies. How can you establish a minimum wage for Jamaica, where the conditions are so different from conditions in this country in regard to relations between the employers and the trade unions? I would ask my hon. Friend, knowing how anxious he is to see better conditions in the Colonial Empire, not to express opinions which may give rise to trouble in the Colonial Empire.

Dr. Morgan: May I ask a question?

Sir P. Hannon: My hon. Friend must forgive me.

Dr. Morgan: I thought the hon. Member would run away.

Sir P. Hannon: Those responsible for administration in the Colonies and in the Colonial Office have, in the face of many difficulties, discharged their obligations to the highest possible degree.

Mr. D. Adams: Are we to understand that the conditions which we have described in Questions and in speeches in this House are entirely satisfactory?

Sir P. Hannon: I would not say that they are entirely satisfactory, but I would say that those responsible for the direction of our Colonial policy abroad, that people charged with the administration of those varied communities, are discharging their obligations faithfully and well, both towards the native subjects and towards the Colonial Office. I have visited all the West Indian islands, the West African Colonies, and the East African Colonies; and I say, in the fullest conviction, that there is not a single Colonial officer whom we have sent abroad who has not dis-


charged his duties with a full sense of realisation of what should be done for the natives. The members of the Colonial administration are making great sacrifices and giving a tremendous amount of personal service, in order to make the position of the natives different.

Dr. Morgan: What about those who have been recalled?

Sir P. Hannon: When somebody says anything in the House about the conditions of these people it embarrasses the administration; and those responsible for native administration are frequently faced with the difficulty of having to deal with arguments which are applicable to conditions in this country, but which are entirely inapplicable to the conditions in which these native peoples live. I would suggest to many hon. Members opposite that they ought to take a more generous and kindly view of the responsibilities which attach to Colonial administration, and realise that those whom we send abroad are serious, hard-working and devoted servants of the Crown, and that we ought to limit our criticism of them, as far as possible, in the work they have to discharge.

Mr. Riley: I would like to comment upon the short speech made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). I am sure he will agree with me that if grievances exist in any of our Colonies, as elsewhere, he would not be in favour of glossing over those grievances. But grievances and injustices must be attended to, for if they are not, trouble naturally follows as a consequence. I want from that point of view to ask for the attention of the Under-Secretary of State on the attitude of the Colonial Office towards the development of self-government, particularly in connection with some of our West Indian Colonies. The House will recall that over the last two years or so reference has been made from time to time in these Debates to the fact that the Colonial Office has been making proposals to some of our West Indian Colonies with regard to new constitutions. Jamaica, Trinidad and British Guiana are cases in point. If we as the Imperial Parliament are to assess properly what is behind these proposals which for the last two years have been put up by the Government through the Colonial Office with regard to the constitution of self-government in the West Indies, we

have to have in mind the background from which these proposals have come. I am confining myself entirely to the policy of the Government in respect of the development of self-government, not in all but in some of the important West Indian Colonies.
The facts are very well known. During the three or four years preceding the out-break of war we had in our West Indian Colonies a regular series, year after year, of disturbances, discontent, strikes, riots and killings—some were killed and many hundreds were arrested arising out of unsatisfactory labour, social and political conditions. As a consequence of these riots and disturbances the Government, in 1938, appointed a Royal Commission to go out to the West Indies to make a full inquiry. The Commission spent six months in the West Indies, from October or November, 1938, to about April, 1939, and they issued a kind of summary. Their report has not been published, but we had a summary of their recommendations and points of view. What has emerged? We have had brought home to us the fact that these important Colonies in the West Indies, such as Jamaica, Barbados and, to a lesser degree, Trinidad—and there are more than a score of them—have been under our administration for from 250 to 300 years. Barbados goes back to 300 years of continuous British administration, and Jamaica has been in our possession since 1655, and yet none of these Colonies today, after 300 years of British administration and assimilation through our Colonial administration, has attained to the right of self-government. There is no Colony in the West Indies to-day which has the right to appoint its own Governor or the right of responsible government. In every case they are conditioned by the Governor and his nominated executive councils.
I am not saying that the absence of that self-government explains the disturbances and the discontent out of which the sending of the Royal Commission arose in 1939. Just as it occurred in our own country a hundred years ago, so in the West Indies, after such a long period of British connection and association, there has been developing a certain political and industrial consciousness among the people. In recent years there have been contacts with America. There


has been over a long period of years a regular flow of British West Indians to America, backwards and forwards, imbibing the atmosphere of the United States and so on. They brought that back to the West Indian Islands, and they expressed it in labour organisations and trade unions.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the hon. Member recall the fact that in Barbados, for example, we have the oldest Legislature in the British Empire and that they are proud of it? They have their own representative at the Empire Parliamentary Association in this House, and in Jamaica we have a similar state of affairs. Can he suggest an instance in which either of the Legislatures of these self-governing communities have asked for the appointment of their own Governor?

Mr. Riley: I must correct my hon. Friend. There is no responsible self-government in Barbados. The Legislative Council is entirely elected and it is representative in a way, but is he aware of the restriction of the franchise? I am making a statement now without having the actual figures in my head, but the percentage of electors in Barbados who exercise the franchise is about six or seven, whereas in this country the percentage of voters who exercise the franchise is over 50. So the Government of Barbados does not represent the people; it has no executive authority.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: What are the requirements for the franchise there? It is rather an interesting point.

Mr. Riley: I think I can give the hon. Member the facts. In the return which was issued in 1938 the qualifications are not given in connection with the respective Colonies, but in the case of Barbados, for instance, there are 24 members of the Legislative Council. There is a population of 190,000 people, and only 3.4 per cent. are qualified to exercise the franchise. So it is perfectly clear that Barbados cannot be described as a Colony in which you have self-government.

Mr. Hannah: Who decides about the franchise? Is it the Colony or this House?

Mr. Riley: This House sanctions the constitution under which the franchise has

hitherto been exercised. Be that as it may, I want to refer to the proposals which have so far emanated from the Colonial Office to meet the demand arising in Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and British Guiana for greater participation in responsible government in those Colonies. In March, 1940, Lord Moyne, then Colonial Secretary, issued a scheme to the Jamaican Legislature in which he made two proposals. The first—an excellent proposal, which is now going on—was that there should be a revision of the franchise in Jamaica and that it should be placed on the basis of universal suffrage. Along with that proposal he included a plan by which the, Legislative Council in Jamaica, which had 30 members, only 14 of whom were elected—the rest consisting either of the Governor and his officials and nominated members—would be increased to 40 members, 28 of whom should be elected. The rest were to be nominated by the Governor. But in that proposal, which was submitted first in March, 1940, there was no suggestion that the Legislative Council in Jamaica should have any control whatever over the Executive Council of that Colony. That proposal was submitted and was turned down by the elected members of the Jamaica Legislative Council. Then in January of this year a second proposal was sent out which is still hanging fire there. The second proposal was that the Legislative Council of 40, with 28 elected on a popular franchise, should have the right to elect a certain number to the Executive Council in an advisory capacity, but that the Government should retain the right of veto and of certification of any legislation on which they thought it necessary to exercise that right.
The issue which is facing the Jamaicans, as it is facing other Colonies in the West Indies, and in regard to which it is important that this Imperial Parliament should make its position quite clear, is whether the real essence of responsible Government is to be conceded, Whether the constitution is to be so amended that not only will there be a majority of elected members on the Council, but also that it will have the right to exercise responsibility in connection with administration. I am not suggesting that in all cases there could be completely responsible Government. I am not suggesting now that, even in Jamaica, the Governor, in certain circumstances, should not have


the right of veto if he thought it advisable. What I am suggesting is that you will never satisfy the developing public opinion in Jamaica, which demands some share of responsible government instead of dependence upon the official elements composing the Governor's Council, until they are given the right of carrying through proposals from an elected council to an executive council, with responsibility to see that they are made effective. It might be that, in the last resort, if some measure of responsible government were conceded, the Government veto might be retained, with the right of appeal by the elected Legislative Council to the Secretary of State in case of dispute.

Sir P. Hannon: It is very kind of the hon. Member to give way to me; may I ask him whether he has been to Jamaica?

Mr. Riley: I have.

Sir P. Hannon: Has he studied the conditions, economic and social? Has he studied the relationships of the Jamaicans with the coloured population working in the banana plantations; has he studied the difficulties with which the executive authorities have to contend in Jamaica; and does he really suggest that we ought to extend to Jamaica the same sort of franchise as we have in this country?

Mr. Riley: I have been to Jamaica. I have done all those things which the hon. Member mentions. For the last six or seven years I have been closely associated with what is taking place in Jamaica, and have studied the situation on the spot. Therefore, I know what I am talking about. Lord Moyne, in his despatch of 5th January of this year, said that he was not prepared to concede responsible government. He was quite prepared to concede representative government, bat not responsible government. The question I put to the Under-Secretary of State is this: Is he seized of the new point of view which is developing during the course of the war, and of the change which is taking place, and may it not be in the best interests of this Imperial Parliament to give every opportunity to those Colonies which are ready for it, to exercise the responsibility of self-government, in their own interests as well as in the interests of the welfare of the Empire as a whole?
Those who represent the opposite point of view, those who want to damp down the reasonable demands and the aspirations of our advanced Colonial peoples to the right of self-government, should remember that we in this country have fought for this right for generations. I am not now including the backward Colonial territories in Africa and so on, I am thinking of Colonies such as Jamaica where there is a wide measure of education. In Jamaica, where no less than 30 per cent. of the population are highly educated, natives occupy most important posts in the professions and sit as magistrates in the courts. Not only is this the case in Jamaica. All around there are other Colonies, not British, but American, French and Dutch, where full self-government has been in operation for many years.
May I remind the Under-Secretary of a very striking example to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has already referred? The right hon. Gentleman and the Government might well ponder over it in relation to our Colonial policy, particularly in the West Indies. How many of us noticed the significant statement which was reported in a leading article in the "Manchester Guardian" on Saturday. It refers to the case of the American colony of Porto Rico, which lies 300 miles west of Jamaica and is in the orbit of a large number of our West Indian Colonies—it is true that it has a larger population than Jamaica—and which has been in the possession of America for the last 50 years. It has not only had a properly elected Chamber and a Senate, with a Governor, appointed hitherto by the United States—

Sir P. Hannon: Ah, yes.

Mr. Riley: Yes, but the announcement to which I now refer is to the effect that President Roosevelt, on the request of the American Governor, has recommended that as from 1944 the Porto Ricans shall elect their own Governor on a popular vote. They will not only appoint their own Governor, but will have charge of justice and education which hitherto have been the prescription of the United States. Are we to lag behind in this respect? Someone has already asked when, in connection with our Colonial administration, our old-established Colonies are to have the opportunity to appoint their own governors.
Why should not the people of Jamaica, with their long experience, have that right which we deny them? There are large numbers of Colonials, who are as well educated as any in this country and who have no right to expect ever to become Chief Secretary, Governor or even chief officials. It is on those lines that I want the Under-Secretary to visualise the problems with which he is face to face in connection with our advanced Colonies, particularly in the West Indies, and I ask him to recognise that, sooner or later—it cannot be staved off for ever—the right of responsible self-government must be the privilege of the Colonial people as well as ours.

Captain Peter Macdonald: This Debate has been extremely interesting, and I congratulate Members of the Opposition who have taken the opportunity of raising Colonial matters again after the prolonged Debate that we had quite recently. The point that I want to raise is the question on which the last Debate rested, the setting up of a Colonial Development Board. A great many of my colleagues put their names to the Motion that we discussed last time, and I got a good deal of support for the proposition, both inside and outside the House. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that he would give full consideration to it. The same question has been raised to-day, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some encouragement for thinking that this Board is going to be set up in the near future. Most of the problems that have been brought forward to-day arise because we have no definite long-term Colonial policy. As far as I know we never have had one and we are not likely to have one unless we have some body, sitting permanently, which is able to work out a policy and carry it out in spite of changes of Government and parties and policy in the House. We can only have continuity of policy if we have a permanent Board. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give us a decision on the question as soon as possible because there is a very strong feeling, not only in the House but generally throughout the country, and also throughout the Colonial Empire, that some such body should be set up. I urge him to come to a decision on the question, otherwise I am afraid my hon. Friends and I will be raising it again in a very short time and demanding another Debate.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: One thing which has been clear throughout this most interesting Debate is that there is general agreement in the House that there is too much ignorance about the Colonial Empire in this country and in the House itself. Although we may differ as to where the misunderstanding is, we all agree that there is too much misunderstanding among our fellow Members as to some of the problems of Empire. There has also been a remarkable consensus of opinion in the House, not for the first time, as to the desirability of something in the nature of a standing committee on Colonial questions. It may be that it should be a joint committee, or it may be that there should be a committee in each House, but if Parliament is to keep informed, if Members are to have the opportunity of putting questions of importance in the right way, we surely need a machinery of this character. That is obvious from to-day's discussion. We have had almost the whole surface of the globe covered. It is impossible for the ablest Under-Secretary to deal in the time with all the great questions which have been raised. It has been cheering and helpful to see that in spite of differences of view there is a large measure of agreement among us as to the great objects that we have to pursue. All that could be brought out in such a committee. It would be possible to discuss leisurely, to have constructive criticism, and to go in private sometimes into difficulties which cannot be suitably discussed in public. I therefore earnestly hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to carry us a stage further on this subject. Six weeks ago he promised to give the matter consideration, and every month that goes by at a critical time like this means a loss to Parliament and to the Colonies if we do not have the best machinery in existence for considering Colonial problems and needs.
I have great sympathy with much that has been said by my hon. Friends above the Gangway as to the need for political development in certain parts of our Colonial Empire and for the application of the spirit of the Atlantic Charter. I think we can be at one about that. We can agree also that we must show by resolute determination that there shall be no colour bar in the way of ability and talent in the public service, wherever it


may be. We want to make that the characteristic of our Commonwealth and Empire. We all agree, too, that we must have a resolute attempt to raise the economic standard of those great territories of the Empire where the standard of living is too low. I think we should also agree on the urgent need for better education, including technical education. We must recognise that in the past we have failed in that respect. It is not pleasant to think that the Russians in Central Asia have taken a backward population and made them literate in the course of 20 years, but that we have still to cope with illiteracy in vast areas of our Empire. I am far from believing that true education consists merely in literary education, but that is a symbol of the kind of neglect which has gone on in the past and I am thankful to think that, for instance, in Achimota and Makerere in West and East Africa we have splendid examples of the best kind of educational development. I hope the Colonial Office will take far further this very fine effort which has been made in recent years to raise the level of education for the people for whom we are responsible.
I hope, too, that we may have it made clear that we support that very fine ideal of Colonial Empire to which expression was given recently by Lord Hailey, who pointed out that the term "trusteeship" has a certain element of patronage in it which is resented by many of our Colonial fellow subjects; that we ought to think of the Colonies as partners in a common concern, and that it is the duty of the senior partner to recognise that the responsibility of the junior partners must increase progressively. That is, perhaps, too commercial a picture of the relationship, and I think the relation ought to be deeper than any analogy taken from commerce, but it is in many ways a very good and notable expression of the aim we should have in view, and I hope the Under-Secretary may make it clear that he does concur in that very fine expression of Lord Hailey's.
I had hoped, had I been able to speak earlier, to refer in detail to one or two other matters, but I want to emphasise two points which have been referred to by earlier speakers. The first concerns the extension of forced labour in Africa. We all know that it was done only under the spur of war conditions, that the

Government do not like it and that it is regarded as a temporary and regretted necessity. Still, it is sad to think that it should have been extended so rapidly and that the conditions which have been applied in Kenya appear not to have been applied in Nigeria. I would ask that we should have a word on the point of wage conditions and wage rates for forced labour in Nigeria. It would make the position far better if we had the conditions which have been applied in Kenya applied also in Nigeria. In particular, I hope the Under-Secretary will consider favourably something in the nature of a welfare levy from the additional profits of the tin mines in Nigeria, to go to the benefit not of individuals but to the labourers and their communities. It is done in our own country. Our own miners have the benefit of a levy, which is used to improve social conditions, and we ought to make it similarly possible in the mines of Nigeria. I hope that that suggestion may be considered.
I will not pursue that point further, because of the time, but I want to turn across the ocean to the West Indies. We had a very earnest appeal from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on the need for political reform. I do not want in any way to traverse what he said—I am sure political reform must come—but I think that along with that and preceding it we need economic improvements. My hon. Friend would probably agree. I very much hope that the fund which has already been voted by Parliament will be spent more fully. We have not yet spent the full amount which is available.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State feels that there are special conditions owing to the war—and of course, there are—which prevent the full use of that money, but there is a great need for an increase in the production of rice in he West Indies now, in consequence of the disappearance of the Burmese rice, which was the chief source of the rice consumed there in previous years. It is of great importance that rice should be produced in greater quantities. On the Island of Trinidad is a great swampy area which might be made use of for the growing of rice. There was a plan after the last war for draining and preparing that land for rice cultivation, and the scheme was not only prepared but was begun; but, in the slump of 1923, it was abandoned. The


labour will now be available. The labour which is working on the American bases will shortly be freed; could it not be used for such work as I have suggested, to the great advantage, not only of Trinidad but of the rest of the West Indies, by the increased rice production? If further labour were needed, there are, unfortunately, large numbers of unemployed in Barbados who could easily be engaged for such valuable work.
One hundred-odd years ago this House gave £20,000,000 to the planters of the West Indies in compensation for the freeing of the slaves. We have never given a similar amount to the slaves or to their descendants. I think the expenditure of this fund is an earnest of our being determined to repay in some sense the debt that we owe to these men, for the years of slavery through which their ancestors passed and for which our ancestors were to some extent responsible. I hope that when he replies, the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us encouragement on that point.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Debate to-day has ranged over a very wide field, and as it follows so soon upon the very comprehensive Debate which we had upon the Estimates, I found myself in some difficulty in collecting, or acquiring, sufficient information to answer the many points which have been raised. I am very much indebted to the bon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), who, with his usual courtesy, gave me some warning of the major points which he meant to raise in starting the Debate. He was good enough to ring me up from his country residence yesterday morning, and he found me at the Colonial Office, to tell me what he was going to say. Before I start to answer the points which have been raised, may I make a preliminary observation which I want to impress upon hon. Members, who have conducted this Debate in such a helpful and constructive spirit?
I have been only a few months at the Colonial Office, but the major problem which haunts me is the duality of my work. There are two lines of work, two lines of thought, all the time. First, there is the war—the oppressive, tremendous, overwhelming demands of war. They have hardly been mentioned to-day. We

might have been having a Debate almost remote from the war; but I feel all the time the urgent needs of this tremendous cataclysm in which we have found ourselves. I have been two years at the Ministry of Supply, I have striven in that atmosphere of urgency; and I have tried to bring into the Colonial Office something of the same urgency. We have to supply the most tremendous needs, we have to press on all the time. Nobody who has not dealt in some degree with the details of the transference from a prewar price economy to a war-planned economy—because that is what we have had to do—can know the amount of detail involved. The organisation is based, not, as in pre-war days, on what it pays somebody to import or export to or out of a Colony, but on what it suits the war effort to import or export out of a Colony. It means an enormous detail of organisation both in the Colonies and at home; of arrangements between Colonial Governments, the home Government, foreign Governments, friendly Governments, Allied Governments; of great detail of inter-departmental organisation—and only those who have had experience of inter-departmental organisation know the degree of permanent and sustained effort required to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion. Therefore, one has only a little bit of one's mind left at the end of long days, and sometimes far into the night, to think about these bigger problems of post-war organisation and development, political problems, and the like. If I am not able to make a complete review—I shall not keep the House very long; we have had a Debate before—I hope hon. Members will not say that I have suddenly turned from a progressive-minded liberal Member who used to sit and harry Governments from the Opposition Benches into a hard-faced man; it is because I conceive I have one major job to do in the war, to assist in any way I can in its successful prosecution—which is not certain, the results of which are not fixed, which we cannot take for granted, which will not be achieved without the most powerful efforts, but on the results of which depend all these discussions, all these Debates, all these hopes and aspirations for the future.
The subject of the standard of living has been raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Shipley


and the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey). What is to be the standard of living in the Colonies? How can we improve it? In war the standard of living of all peoples tends to fall, if one means the standard of living in terms of realities, goods and services, and not in terms of money. In the Colonial Empire I think we may say that in the more primitive countries there has been this compensation, that in terms of services, in terms of medical services, and so on, standards may have risen. In West Africa I think the standards in food and so on have not fallen. In East Africa they have slightly risen because of new arrangements we have been able to make for the great mobilised forces both in the Army and in the labour forces. In the West Indies there will be great difficulties—we may as well face the facts; it is no good telling untruths to the House—unless the submarine campaign in the Caribbean is rapidly overcome. We shall have great difficulties in maintaining standards. We have done our best to overcome the difficulties. We have to make arrangements which are necessary, but it will need great ingenuity to maintain even existing standards.
I have been asked about the economic development of the West Indies and what we have done. Since the war we have purchased all the West Indies sugar at a reasonable price based on the cost of production. Total production has not been increased owing, firstly, to the shortage of labour and of manufacturing capacity, which is really the governing factor of sugar production; secondly, to shortage of shipping, now intensified. Therefore to increase sugar production will not solve our problem. The answer is to increase local production of foodstuffs. It is the best thing to do now. It was the right thing to do before. It had started to some extent before the war, and we are now pursuing it most actively, firstly by guaranteed prices for the vegetables, peas, beans, etc., produced; secondly, by regulations requiring and enforcing the devotion of a certain proportion of plantation estates from sugar to food production—for instance, in Barbados we have enforced a 25 per cent. devotion—thirdly, by increased aid and instruction. There again the limiting factor may be the shortage of agricultural officers. In Jamaica where, as Members know, there was a large sum of money made available

shortly after the war for the assistance of banana production, we have made an arrangement with the Treasury whereby the whole of that sum can be devoted to the production of alternative foodstuffs, and to the compensation and payment necessary to turn over from banana production. I will not go into details, but they are available if any Member would like to know them.
Our next problem is the actual maintenance of the shipping situation in the West Indies. Members would not be here now if they were not interested in the Colonies, but I am bound to say that some people do seem to talk rather as though it was a question of sending something from Kent to Cornwall. There are a thousand miles between one island and another, and these agreeable adjustments one is supposed to make in a day or two to send this or that from one place to another are as great an undertaking in defence of your convoys as some of the great trans-oceanic convoying of shipping. There is an increasing shortage of petrol which will cause difficulty in agriculture, both in production and in distribution. Lastly, and this is the thing which has most pained me—

Dr. Morgan: Why shortage of petrol with Trinidad next door?

Mr. Macmillan: There is not shortage of the existence of petrol, but there is, under the arrangements we have made of complete Anglo-American control, of shipping which may be used.

Dr. Morgan: Even wooden shipping?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. Even schooner shipping, which is to be brought under control. There is complete control whereby the exact quantities and freights will be carried that are agreed between the Colonial liaison body at Washington and the American authorities. We must agree with them not to import one single thing more, or put one more little piece of pressure upon this very serious situation, than is necessary to maintain a reasonable existence. There is the point I was coming to that after making all these plans, and after voting all this money for Colonial welfare—with all the good will in the world it is not a question of money. We are out of the period of money; it is a question of things. You can vote all the millions of money you like to Colonial


welfare, but you will not build another house in the West Indies unless you can get a nail, a hammer, the steel and the timber there. None of these things is easy to get; they are all in short supply. Even if we can get allocation, and that is not always difficult, because the quantities are not very great, the materials cannot be shipped there except by the arrangements come to in accordance with the present maritime situation and the present defence situation.
Many things were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) in his admirable speech, but it is not a question of voting money for a sanatorium; it is question of finding a ship to take the materials over. I am not speaking of the past but of the present and the future. As the position improves we shall press forward with the greatest energy, with the greater energy because of the disappointment of having all the schemes and the plans which are prepared held up by the harsh necessities of war. Hon. Members spoke of political development in the West Indies. I have always believed that, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) said so well, economic and political disorders cannot be disentangled. Often it is hard to say which is the parent and which is the child. I will not go into the rather complicated details of the curious constitutions of these various islands, dating hundreds of years back. Some of them, when they were framed, were very advanced constitutions. Perhaps they do riot now conform to modern standards. In one island the franchise may be a very small percentage of the population. Bermuda, the Bahamas, and Barbados are often classed together, but the proportion in the Bahamas is as high as some 30 per cent. of the adult population. This House can force democracy on the West Indies if it likes. It can do anything it likes, in theory. But in practice it seems to me what we have to do is to lead development—and I agree with almost everything my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury said—take the line of leadership, and gradually bring these things about, with the general good will, and setting ourselves a high standard. But we must not take too naive a view of the situation. Sometimes the outward sign of disagreement between the Colonial Office and some

Legislative Council may not represent the reality that lies underneath. I can assure my hon. Friends, without committing myself to particular policies on particular questions, that my noble Friend has this policy in mind, and that he shares very much the aspirations which have been put forward to-day.
There is another matter which the hon. Member for Shipley raised, and which the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities touched upon in a very friendly and helpful way. I refer to this question of compulsory service. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale), on the other hand, rather rebuked us because we have not raised sufficient Armies from the Colonies.

Mr. J. Dugdale: For the war.

Mr. Macmillan: So is compulsory labour for the war.

Mr. Dugdale: It is for private profit.

Mr. Macmillan: I will come to that in a moment. I assure my hon. Friend that the figures for African battalions are much bigger than he indicated, although I cannot give the figures. It is not a question of the number of regiments, but a number of battalions are raised belonging to a certain regiment, and the multiplication of battalions is on a much higher scale than might have been indicated by the figures he had in mind. Nevertheless, the life of these countries has to be taken into account. Where a peasant population lives it is not so easy to remove great masses of men as in a highly developed country, where a machine will take the place of men. It would be monstrous to attempt to raise from Nigeria anything like the proportion of the population for the Army that you can raise from a highly developed European country, because if you did so it would be impossible to keep the people alive. There are many other services that those people can render, in food production and so on, which it is important to maintain. But I recognise the spirit in which his speech was made. We welcome it. He represents, quite rightly, the anxious desire of the peoples of Africa to be associated in every way with the war.

Dr. Morgan: And of the West Indies.

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, but I was speaking of Africa. In Africa, as in other Colonies, there is always the distinction between those people who are traditionally of a fighting race and others to whom fighting does not come so naturally. In the West Indies there again is a particular problem. If by raising Armies for foreign service is meant moving a very big force, again our shipping problem is a limiting one. Whether it is the raising of Armies for service outside the territory or Continent in which they are or the raising of Armies for service for their own defence we are concentrating upon both. As is well-known a battalion of the King's African Rifles are in Ceylon. But the main concentration obviously is on the raising of Armies for the defence of their own territories.

Dr. Morgan: Surely the decision not to raise a West Indian regiment was made long before the present acute shipping situation arose?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I was not responsible for that, but when it was reviewed the shipping situation had become a limiting factor.
I move from the raising, whether by conscription or by voluntary recruitment, of military Forces to the question raised by my hon. Friend and others of conscription, or forced labour, or whatever one might call it, for production services. He was good enough to say that we had a very long Debate on this, with which he was reasonably satisfied, and I will not go into the details any further. On the Kenya question he was good enough to say that the arrangements we had made there assuming this was to be done at all, were reasonably satisfactory. I can tell the House that every point that was brought to my notice in that Debate has been taken further, and we have arranged that the schoolboys of 16 will not be called up in the way that he feared. We have reduced the penalties from £5 to £2, and we have provided a considerable additional inspectorate. A central wages board has also laid down general scales of rations and meals and fixed minimum wages for the compulsory labour. In Tanganyika there has been compulsory labour, but on a very limited scale, only for a short-term emergency for planting of crops, and that is all. In Northern Rhodesia the whole thing amounted to less than 700 men, and

now it is a small voluntarily recruited force to do general work for the Government, such as road making, and so on.

Mr. Creech Jones: That is in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I am not responsible for Southern Rhodesia. In Nigeria it is a new problem which has come upon us, and I cannot quite accept the definition of the Colonial Office attitude of the hon. Member for Shipley. We did not rush in Kenya and in Nigeria to accept proposals for compulsory labour. On the contrary, we examine with the greatest care. Great numbers of telegrams are interchanged, and an immense coming and going takes place between the Colonial Office and the territories concerned. It is necessary for purposes of the record, although the hour is late, to go over the reasons why we found it necessary to have compulsory labour in Nigeria. We require 30,000 additional people if we can get them. We require an immense additional production of tin. We have lost 60 per cent. of the world's production of tin. Labour has been largely taken up by Army needs and raising of voluntary forces for the Army and military works, pioneer corps, and things of that kind. So that the more successful we are in meeting the wishes of the hon. Member for West Brom-wich the more we increase our problem of meeting the difficulty of getting labour for the Nigerian tin mines. Labour is no longer coming from the Vichy territories, from where we used to get a certain amount. As Members know, the incentive to money wages, is not, in the more primitive territories, the easy method of obtaining labour that it is is in the more sophisticated territories. The Nigerian tin mines must not be conceived of as mines in the sense of collieries; they merely consist of removing 10 or 15 feet of earth from the surface and then working the deposits at that point.
Recruitment was originally from neighbouring tribes. It is important that we should recruit in a fairly evenly-spread and controlled way, because it is important to maintain food production all over the country. Therefore, recruitment should be evened out. Unfortunately if we were to depend merely upon raising wages to a high level, or something of that kind, it would probably attract just that type of labour which is least suited to the work. We should attract labour


from the coast. The tin mines lie on a high plateau where there is cold, rough weather, and the people suited to that weather are the more primitive tribes which live in the Northern areas. I have not seen them myself, but I have been shown many pictures of these people, who, although the weather is comparatively cold, do not find it necessary to wear any clothes. It would not suit us at all to bring the coast men in—indeed, it would be wrong.
As to safeguards, when it is said that they are not as good as they ought to be, if that is so, I will try and make them better, but may I point out that there are proper medical inspection, subsistence and free transport to and from the mines, a reception camp, with free meals, in charge of administrative officers, and a special inspectorate department; and may I also say that I have just received a telegram giving the appointment of two new, experienced officials. They are hard to get now, as we have to take them from somewhere else. Conscripted labourers have the same wage rate as voluntary labourers and companies provide housing and medical treatment. The age limit was originally fixed from 18 to 55; now it has been reduced and is from 18 to 44. Workmen's compensation covers conscripted labour, and hours of work are the same as for voluntary labour. One rest day each week is being given. I think I have given the broad general reasons why we must raise this tin.

Mr. Harvey: Are there special conditions as regards food, because in Kenya conditions as regards meals have improved recently?

Mr. Macmillan: The difficulty about food governs the difficulty about recuitment. Up to now we have recruited only 3,000, and the reason is that we cannot afford to recruit any more until the harvest is in. If it is a good harvest, we shall be able to recruit more without injuring our economy; but if it is a bad harvest, I am afraid that the figure of 30,000 will not be reached and tin production will fall below the voracious demands of the Ministry of Supply and our American Allies,

Mr. Creech Jones: Is recruiting at the moment confined to particular tribesmen? Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the period of conscription?

Mr. Macmillan: The maximum period which has now been agreed to is for four months. Originally it was two months, but in order to do that, we had to get 20,000 in and out to get 2,000 or 3,000 working for a few months. Because of pressure on our transport and the state of our wagons, etc., we had to raise it to four months.
Now comes the question of whether this work is for private profit or for Government profit. I do not, alas, know these territories; I can only read about them and see photographs of them, and I try to imagine two of these people talking about what is going on. One says to the other that he has to go to a Government colliery; it has been socialised and he likes the idea. The other says that he does not like that. He has to go to Amalgamated Tin, whereupon the first says he does not like that because it is a concern which is working for private profit. The other says "But there is 100 per cent. E.P.T.," and the first replies that of that there is 20 per cent. rebate, and so forth. But I cannot believe that that represents any reality. What really happens is that they are not interested in such things. If it did represent any reality at all, it would not represent any reality to them. Therefore I do not think it matters; what matters to us is: Have we done something wrong?
Who wants to get tin out of the mines? I do, and the Ministry of Supply do. If the companies were not patriotic people, the last thing in the world they would want to do would be to take tin out of the mines, but what are they doing? They are working the mines at the rate of 120 per cent., ruining the mines. We tell them to work, the best seams and to get the stuff out. They are injuring their own property, paying 100 per cent. E.P.T., and getting no additional profit whatever. It is our difficulty, or it would be if they were not patriotic people, to overcome their sense of duty to their shareholders, because we are in fact injuring them and not benefiting them at all. Under the agreement we have made it does not make the slightest difference to their profit how much tin is taken out, because the agreement is that the Ministry of Supply pays them the cost of working, plus the profit of 1939 or the average profit of the three years before 1939. That is a fixed profit payment, and they are in


fact the agents of the Government. Therefore, whether it is a matter of satisfaction to ourselves to feel that we are working on a nationally-controlled agreement, because the companies are agents of the Government, or whether it is a matter of satisfaction to the Africans, you may say that in fact they are working on Government account for the war effort.
I want to make it absolutely clear, beyond any shadow of doubt, that my Noble Friend and I dislike forced labour. The whole of this House dislikes it, and the whole history of Africa has been one of gradually getting away from it. It is an old tradition and has been in existence for a long time, and there are certain services for which compulsory labour might be regarded, in more primitive times, as reasonable. When the chief called upon his men they came out and built a road, or did some act of public service in much the same way as we pay our taxes. But we do not like it; we regret it, and we shall not keep it on a moment longer than is necessary. We are using it as sparingly as we can. In Kenya the settlers would not ask for it; the Government forced it upon them. We could not afford to ask the settlers to grow crops and then let the crops lie rotting upon the ground. There are some crops which are exotic crops, wheat in particular, which the natives do not know how to grow, and which must therefore be grown by the settlers. But it is a mistake to imagine that in Kenya the settlers asked for it. The sisal growers have not asked for it, and in Northern Rhodesia the mine owners have not asked for it. We are introducing every possible safeguard we can, and if anybody can think of any more safeguards, I should be most happy to see whether we could introduce them, as we did to meet the wishes of the Members of the House after the Kenya Debate.
There are many other subjects with which I must deal before I wind up, and I must apologise to hon. Members if I Cannot deal with all their points. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made, not exactly an accusation, but an innuendo that there was a statement going around that in some way or other the Colonial Office had got mixed up with monopolies in West Africa and was increasing the powers of monopoly traders.

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like the Under-Secretary to quote me correctly. I made no such innuendo or suggestion. I merely asked the Colonial Office not to strengthen the monopolies in any action they took to deal with imports or exports.

Mr. Macmillan: On imports, our position is very simple. Anyone who can get an import licence can import into West Africa. Import licences are given by the local government, and the local government is supposed to decide whether an import licence is to be given and whether the commodity is to be imported. As the war has gone on, that method has become too loose, because more import licences are given, or because there is a long delay between the giving of a licence and the sailing of a ship with no guarantee that when the ship is ready the machinery will be ready too. Therefore, we are proposing to substitute for the system of import licences a complete freight control. That is the answer—because we cannot afford to waste any tonnage which is available. How we shall run that import or freight control, I am not quite certain, but we are now working on the mechanism. The first thing is to get the mechanism; then we have to decide the agency. We shall run it either through the Colonial Office or through an agency. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall run it fairly and squarely, but, no doubt, as in all these things, there may be some ill effects on private interests. I am not, however, so interested in private interests; they have to suffer. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend defends that system.
As regards exports, there is only one monopoly. I am the monopoly. The West African Produce Control Board controls all the exports from West Africa. I have set up a complete socialistic control. The only people from whom I might have expected criticisms would have been Members who. do not wish to see the Government go in for complete control.

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not criticise it.

Mr. Macmillan: As far as exports are concerned, they will be bought by the Board and resold to the Ministries of Food and Supply, or to our American Allies. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale brought up again the question of the St. Kitts sugar factory, and he was so nice to me that I hardly like to


criticise him at all. After the last Debate I asked him to come to my room at any time and have tea or supper with me when I would tell him all about the finances of the St. Kitts sugar factory. I have the papers waiting on my table. I have studied the whole of this financial transaction, and I thought I had mastered it, but now I have forgotten it. I say to my hon. Friend, "Come and see me."

Dr. Morgan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that his Secretary wrote to me and asked me to postpone the visit till later?

Mr. Macmillan: I told my hon. Friend again to come. We will try to find out exactly what has happened. Whether it is a promise or a threat that you can make 1,400 per cent. on your money by investing it in the St. Kitts factory, I leave to the House. In his remarks on the position generally in the West Indies, I think he was unfair to the Colonial Office, because the ordinary reader of our Debates would not realise that nine out of 10 officials in the Service are West Indians. In many places there axe only one or two English officials. The last judgeship appointment in Trinidad went to a West Indian. The English Colonial Service does not represent 10 per cent. of the Colonial officials.

Mr. Mathers: I take it that when the Under-Secretary says English he means British?

Dr. Morgan: I was referring in my speech to indigenous persons not being able to rise to the higher posts.

Mr. Macmillan: Here is the case of a West Indian being appointed to a judgeship in Trinidad, which is a very high post. We do try to follow the criterion of merit; with a bias, if at all, for the indigenous persons, because we want to develop that, and I can assure him it is in that spirit that it is done.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) made a very fine speech which contained very fine sentiments. I thought them very inspiring. I cannot answer definitely the point that he made about future policy. He asked me about propaganda in the United States. Propaganda is, of course, a difficult thing. I am never quite happy about

it. I do not really understand it. I have spent a great part of my life in trying to sell books, and I have found very often that the best salesmanship was by getting high quality and not bothering too much about what may be called "sales pressure." If the stuff is good, you will sell it. If our policy is put forward honestly, and the policy is honest and sound, we shall gradually get it understood. I am distrustful of propaganda, and I think it has to be carefully handled or you may do more harm than good. Nevertheless, my Noble Friend has been impressed by the need of contacts with leading organs of opinion, universities and students in America, and we have made arrangements for putting upon the staff of the British Ambassador in America a representative of the Colonial Office of high standing, which I think will be very useful in seeing that our point of view is represented at the Embassy and in making the necessary contacts with our American friends. My hon. and gallant Friend made a very fine defence of the British in Malaya, and I am very glad he did. It was quite right that he should make it, and I know no one better fitted to make it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) asked whether we have yet come to a decision as to setting up a Colonial Development Board. Alas, I can only tell him that no decision has been reached. My Noble Friend is still considering the best method of operating and planning the future working of Colonial development and welfare, and, as soon as a decision is reached, I shall be happy to announce it, but I am sorry that I am not in a position to make an announcement to-day.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) discussed the question of the Essential Work Order, wage boards and other problems in the West Indian and other Colonies, and I agree with what both of them said that, if we are to develop on sound lines a proper relationship between workers and employers in the Colonies, we must learn some of the experience of our own island. We have learned, after some harsh and difficult experiences, to develop a sound, well-led, well-managed, responsible trade union movement. All our modem employers realise that upon their friendly


relationship with the trade union movement depends the stability of British industry. If we are to get something like that in the Colonies, we have to lay the foundations of it. I tried to explain in the Estimates Debate the steps that we have taken to make use of labour officers, men with trade-union experience, who could help in building it up. But it can never be built up on the basis of mere political agitation by people who are in the movement more for what they are getting out of it than for what they are putting into it. The best service that we can give is to send men of fine type and character from this country who can lay the proper foundations on which a more effective and better relationship between employers and employed can be built up.
We have had a very good Debate, and great numbers of points have been raised. We have had a very friendly Debate. The Colonial Office, of course, is sometimes criticised. The British Empire is sometimes criticised. I think that we must be careful ourselves not to indulge in what was a luxury in happier days of over-criticising ourselves. It is a very old English tradition that we should deprecate our own efforts, but it can become rather dangerous if other people take us too seriously. If self-criticism is the basis of more strenuous action as it is among ourselves in our Debates, to build up and inspire more to be done, it is a good thing, but we must be careful lest some jealous and sometimes not friendly ears listen to it and use it in the wrong way. We have, I think, in the very long story of our Colonial development some episodes of which we are not so proud as of others, but, broadly speaking, we have certainly not to regard it as a subject for denigration or a subject for shame. Certainly we can say this to ourselves, make this bargain with ourselves—that if we do as well in our generation as our fathers and forefathers did in theirs, we shall have little of which to be ashamed and much of which to be proud.

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has given consideration to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) with regard to some organisation for the closer and more intimate association of this House and the Colonial Empire?

Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps I had so many things to deal with that I did not deal with that point properly. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the questions of setting up committees of the House of Commons and of setting up Colonial development boards are very big questions. They are what are called, in the jargon of Whitehall, questions that are settled on a higher level than myself. All I can do is to represent them to that level.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That Mr. Cary be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and that Mr. Kimball be added to the Committee."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.